Astronomers hoping to directly capture image of a black hole

Astronomers hoping to directly capture image of a black hole
Gravitational monster: This artistic impression shows the event horizon around the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. Credit: M. Moscibrodzka, T. Bronzwaar and H. Falcke, Radboud University

Astronomers want to record an image of the heart of our galaxy for the first time: a global collaboration of radio dishes is to take a detailed look at the black hole which is assumed to be located there. This Event Horizon Telescope links observatories all over the world to form a huge telescope, from Europe via Chile and Hawaii right down to the South Pole. IRAM's 30-metre telescope, an installation co-financed by the Max Planck Society, is the only station in Europe to be participating in the observation campaign. The Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy is also involved with the measurements, which are to run from 4 to 14 April initially.

At the end of the 18th century, the naturalists John Mitchell and Pierre Simon de Laplace were already speculating about "dark stars" whose gravity is so strong that light cannot escape from them. The ideas of the two researchers still lay within the bounds of Newtonian gravitational theory and the corpuscular theory of light. At the beginning of the 20th century, Albert Einstein revolutionized our understanding of gravitation - and thus of matter, space and time - with his General Theory of Relativity. And Einstein also described the concept of .

These objects have such a large, extremely compacted mass that even light cannot escape from them. They therefore remain black – and it is impossible to observe them directly. Researchers have nevertheless proven the existence of these gravitational traps indirectly: by measuring gravitational waves from colliding black holes or by detecting the strong gravitational force they exert on their cosmic neighbourhood, for example. This force is the reason why stars moving at great speed orbit an invisible gravitational centre, as happens at the heart of our galaxy, for example.

It is also possible to observe a black hole directly, however. Scientists call the boundary around this exotic object, beyond which light and matter are inescapably sucked in, the event horizon. At the very moment when the matter passes this boundary, the theory states it emits intense radiation, a kind of "death cry" and thus a last record of its existence. This radiation can be registered as radio waves in the millimetre range, among others. Consequently, it should be possible to image the event horizon of a black hole.

The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) is aiming to do precisely this. One main goal of the project is the black hole at the centre of our Milky Way, which is around 26,000 light years away from Earth and has a mass roughly equivalent to 4.5 million solar masses. Since it is so far away, the object appears at an extremely small angle.

Astronomers hoping to directly capture image of a black hole
Listening post into space: IRAM’s 30-metre dish is one of the most sensitive radio telescopes in the global collaboration known as the Event Horizon Telescope. Credit: IRAM / Nicolas Billot

One solution to this problem is offered by interferometry. The principle behind this technique is as follows: instead of using one huge telescope, several observatories are combined together as if they were small components of a single gigantic antenna. In this way scientists can simulate a telescope which corresponds to the circumference of our Earth. They want to do this because the larger the telescope, the finer the details which can be observed; the so-called angular resolution increases.

The EHT project exploits this observational technique and in April it is to carry out observations at a frequency of 230 gigahertz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.3 millimetres, in interferometry mode. The maximum angular resolution of this global radio telescope is around 26 micro-arcseconds. This corresponds to the size of a golf ball on the Moon or the breadth of a human hair as seen from a distance of 500 kilometres!

These measurements at the limit of what is observable are only possible under optimum conditions, i.e. at dry, high altitudes. These are offered by the IRAM observatory, partially financed by the Max Planck Society, with its 30-metre antenna on Pico Veleta, a 2800-metre-high peak in Spain's Sierra Nevada. Its sensitivity is surpassed only by the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), which consists of 64 individual telescopes and looks into space from the Chajnantor plateau at an altitude of 5000 metres in the Chilean Andes. The plateau is also home to the antenna known as APEX, which is similarly part of the EHT project and is managed by the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy.

The Max Planck Institute in Bonn is furthermore involved with the data processing for the Event Horizon Telescope. The researchers use two supercomputers (correlators) for this; one is located in Bonn, the other at the Haystack Observatory in Massachusetts in the USA. The intention is for the computers to not only evaluate data from the galactic black hole. During the observation campaign from 4 to 14 April, the astronomers want to take a close look at at least five further objects: the M 87, Centaurus A and NGC 1052 galaxies as well as the quasars known as OJ 287 and 3C279.

From 2018 onwards, a further observatory will join the EHT project: NOEMA, the second IRAM observatory on the Plateau de Bure in the French Alps. With its ten high-sensitivity antennas, NOEMA will be the most powerful of the collaboration in the northern hemisphere.


Explore further

Astronomers to peer into a black hole for first time with new Event Horizon Telescope

Provided by Max Planck Society
Citation: Astronomers hoping to directly capture image of a black hole (2017, April 3) retrieved 27 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-04-astronomers-capture-image-black-hole.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
324 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 03, 2017
Researchers have nevertheless proven the existence of these gravitational traps indirectly: by measuring gravitational waves from colliding black holes or by detecting the strong gravitational force they exert on their cosmic neighborhood...

Now journalists are resorting to lies regarding astrophysics to sell the pseudoscientific fantasies of the plasma ignoramuses. And it would seem the astrophysicists have no problem with these lies being promoted. Pathetic.

Apr 03, 2017
Now journalists are resorting to lies regarding astrophysics to sell the pseudoscientific fantasies of the plasma ignoramuses. And it would seem the astrophysicists have no problem with these lies being promoted. Pathetic.


This coming from people who believe comets are chunks of rock blasted off of planets by gigantic electrical woo in the recent past! Lol.
And these science ignoramuses are also lying. They did detect gravitational waves, twice, and they have seen the gravitational force exerted on the stars around Sgr A*. Perhaps these science ignoramuses, instead of lying, will actually explain these things. Scientifically. My breath is held. Not.

http://www.galact...ons.html
https://journals....6.061102
https://journals....116.2411

Apr 03, 2017
Shouldnt light passing very close to the event horizon be red shifted?

Apr 03, 2017
Shouldnt light passing very close to the event horizon be red shifted?

Don't think so - it's source is not moving away. It would be lensed (or bent) however.

Apr 04, 2017
Shouldnt light passing very close to the event horizon be red shifted?
From far away, @Zzzzz is correct. However, if one was close enough to the black hole, it would actually be net *blue* shifted; this would happen while it was moving through the gravity field toward the black hole, not while it passed the event horizon. From far away, it also has to move through the rest of the gravity field away from the black hole, and it gets red shifted back to where it started (or very close), which is *why* @Zzzzz is correct.

Apr 04, 2017
As for whatever you want to call the mass sitting in the middle of the galaxy at Sagittarius A*, it has to have enough mass in a small enough space to make the orbits of the stars surrounding it what they are. It can't be very big, or we'd already have been able to resolve it with radio telescopes (which have a much larger aperture than optical telescopes- that's one reason we use them). With that much mass in that little a volume, its gravity dictates an escape velocity greater than light, meaning no light can escape it.

There really isn't any way around this. You can call it whatever you like; most people call it a "black hole."

What the observation in this article aims to do is to image this area in great detail in radio. Not only will the aperture be the size of the Earth, but radio penetrates the gas and dust clouds between here and the center of the galaxy.
[contd]

Apr 04, 2017
[contd]
Because of these facts, we'll have both the benefit of this penetrating power and the benefit of an aperture 8000 miles across. This particular black hole at the center of our galaxy is thousands of times closer than any other; it's only 30 thousand light years away, instead of 2.5 million or so like the Andromeda galaxy, and a very great deal farther for any other galaxy. Therefore this is the closest look at the black hole at the center of any galaxy we're going to get by thousands of times. Unless, of course, we invent intergalactic travel, which seems speculative at best at this time. We cannot fail to learn a very great deal.

So when anyone sees one of the EUdiots claiming there are no black holes, we just need to keep reminding them of one simple fact: the orbits of the stars around the center of the galaxy mean there is an object there that has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light.

That is all.

Apr 04, 2017
@DaS
If it was emitted near the event horizon though it would be gravitationally redshifted, right? Zzzz seems to be addressing cosmological redshift of the origin being largely unaffected which is what you seemed to imply as well. EHT is trying to grab light from an accretion disk or outflow. Light climbing out of lower gravitational potential into higher potential will get redshifted.

Apr 04, 2017
If it was emitted near the event horizon though it would be gravitationally redshifted, right?

Yes. But for that to be significant it would have to be emitted very near to the event horizon. Infalling matter gets hot pretty far out already, so what you should be seeing is basically a continuous mix of more and less redshifted spectral lines (which should look like a one-sided broadening of spectral lines)

The light from the ouflow can be created quite far away (as shockfronts catch up to and smack into one another), so I wouldn't expect large redshift from that part.

Apr 04, 2017
@Enthusiast, What @antialias said.

But it's also noteworthy that the black hole at the center of the galaxy, Sgr A*, is a very "quiet" black hole, with not much of an accretion disk. So most light passing by its EH will be coming from far away from the object, not nearby from the accretion disk.

Apr 04, 2017
@bschott
BH's are missing from all of our OBSERVATIONS
Ummm, no. Our observations include stars orbiting Sgr A*, and those tell us the mass of the object, and once we know the mass we can calculate its Schwarzchild radius very simply. Knowing that we can look for an object larger than that, and if we don't find one, then whatever we're looking at has an escape velocity greater than light. It's very simple and doesn't require any complicated math at all.

So this is just plain wrong. As you have been told many times.

The very simplest definition of a black hole is an object whose size is smaller than its Schwarzchild radius.

That is all.

RNP
Apr 04, 2017
@bscott
Sgr A* is the name we have applied to the center of the galaxy and yes, stars orbit this region.


and those tell us the mass of the object,

Your gravity THEORY is the only place this happens, Once again for the delusional:



We measure the mass of the Sun using the radii and velocities of its satellites (i.e. planets). See the NASA webpage https://imagine.g...ass.html .

We do the same thing to measure the mass of the planets by measuring the radii and velocities of their moons (e.g. http://www.phy.oh...ss.html) .

So, if you think the THEORY of gravity does not apply in the case of the galactic center you will have to present a reason why this should be true. Otherwise you can not expect anybody to take your post as just another bunch of pseudo-scientific claptrap.

RNP
Apr 04, 2017
@bschott
Um....how much more matter does the theory of gravity in general require to be validated? 5 X more than we can detect? Riiiiight.


You have failed to understand and/or confused the scales upon which simple Newtonian gravity can be applied and the larger scale upon which the DM effect is required to explain motions.

On the tiny scale of the central BH, the DM effect is negligible. You would know this if you had any knowledge of the physics you are trying to discuss.

Apr 04, 2017
As Benni is so fond of saying...show me a picture of one then....what??? you can't??? Then...Um,yes.

Got any pictures of a photon I can look at? Or maybe a picture of an electron? Thanks in advance!

Apr 04, 2017
The very simplest definition of a black hole is an object whose size is smaller than its Schwarzchild radius.


Not so fast Schnneibo, you're trying too hard:

"At the center of a black hole lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite.[61] For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation.[62] In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

You products of the low information Pop-Sci Culture just keep trying too hard to define the indefinable, all because you can't explain your own hypotheses with a credible cogency that explains how to apply the Inverse Square Law.

Apr 04, 2017
On the tiny scale of the central BH, the DM effect is negligible. You would know this if you had any knowledge of the physics you are trying to discuss.


Another low information Pop-Sci Culture consumer, a Journalist who continues to believe it is stupid not to believe in something that has never been proven in all the annals of science to exist. Yeah, you think applying the Inverse Square Law from the center of a gravitating is a smart discussion to have about the "knowledge of the physics you are trying to apply".

What we want are Schneibo's pictures that he told bshott he had seen, whereby proving BHs exist. Schneibo told us some months back he'd seen such pics. Maybe Schneibo was seeing those pics in a dream from the night before & woke up confused about reality versus his dream state. Right Schneibo?

Apr 04, 2017
Oh, and by the way, gravity has been measured in the lab. In fact, it was done over 200 years ago: https://en.wikipe...periment

Cavendish's results were accurate to within 2%. Excellent for the 18th century, I'd say. Various other experiments have been performed since, notably Schlamminger et al, Newman et al, and Gundlach and Merkowitz, to give three of the most accurate and precise. Current measurements run to six or seven significant figures precision and are accurate to within 20 parts per million.

So when you whine "Oh, it's only a THEORY," keep in mind that this theory has been confirmed in the lab and observed in space. We have used it to send spacecraft to the farthest reaches of the Solar System and beyond, and we use it every day to make GPS work. Looks like a pretty darn good theory to me. Just sayin'.

Apr 04, 2017
Moving right along, when you get a really good theory, you can tell because it's simple. Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation has the formula F = GmM/r² and it is sufficient to show that there is an object with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. It's been around since 1687, over three hundred years. Einstein's General Relativity Theory improves on its accuracy, but does not overturn it. TUG is generally referred to by physicists as a Law of Nature. That's the next (and only) step above a theory. Cavendish's experiment is generally regarded as the first laboratory experiment that proved it.

Once again: I don't care what terminology you choose to apply to "an object with an escape velocity greater than light." You can call it a blivet, or a dark star, or a black hole. It's all the same thing. John Michell called such an object a "dark star" in 1783. Pierre LaPlace agreed with him.

Now stop whining.

Apr 04, 2017
And as to the validity of the Cavendish experiment, it showed not merely that the lead balls were attracted to one another, but also that Newton's TUG was accurate not only for astronomical objects (which Newton had shown when he originally published) but also held exactly the same for objects in the laboratory. Cavendish went to great lengths to ensure that the force he was measuring was not affected by any outside influence. The fact that his measurements were perpendicular to the Earth's gravity field and that this is guaranteed by suspending the apparatus on a wire that is the sole point of contact is particularly important, eliminating the Earth's field as a potential source of error. The experiment was so good that it was not exceeded in accuracy for a hundred years, and measurements today are still made using it (though there are some other methods also used).

Apr 04, 2017
Now stop whining.
...........finally. it's taken all this time, at least now we know you believe gravity really does exist.

Now all you need to do is learn why the maximum attraction of ALL gravitating bodies is from its surface & not its center, just the opposite of your bogus theory of the structure of BHs.

How about if you give us a dissertation about a Law of Physics by which a FINITE MASS can have a singular region with infinite density? And don't start with concocting convoluted math that has no evidence for its derivation within the known Laws of Physics, yeah, you, what I'm talking about.

So, c'mon here, scientists know F = GmM/r² proves gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, but you've been here on countless occasions denying this, instead you've insisted gravity is DENSITY DEPENDENT based on your reverse application of the Inverse Square Law which is nothing less than Perpetual Motion. When will you ever learn? Probably never.

Apr 04, 2017
@Lenni, you are pitiful. I make no speculations on what's inside a black hole. I don't use Einstein. It's very simple and has been known for hundreds of years.

If you're going to lie at least try to make it credible. You are teh fail.

Apr 04, 2017
Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that mass can be measured independent of gravity. Mass has inertia, and this means that its motion can be measured when the mass is under the influence of forces other than gravity. So @Lenni's BS fails because we can measure not only the *weight* but the *mass* of the balls in the Cavendish experiment, and in fact later versions did exactly that.

Anyone who knew any physics, like for example Newton's First Law of Motion, would already know that. It's another of those really simple ones: F = ma. And it's another Law of Nature.

Basically the EUdiots want to go back three hundred years or more and wipe out everything we've learned, despite the fact it has led to refrigerators, trips to the Moon, and the very computers they're typing this BS on.

Apr 04, 2017
The thing deniers don't get is that science is all tied together. It's called "consilience" and it means that many areas of science confirm and are confirmed by other completely separate areas. This is consistency; and it's how humans detect liars and cheaters. We're experts at it, having had millions of years of evolution to sniff them out.

The deniers think everyone else is stupid. The fact is, by being inconsistent, and ignoring consilience, it is they who are stupid. They think no one will notice. Against all evidence.

Apr 04, 2017
What I'm saying to you, @Lenni, is that the black hole at the center of the galaxy is as certain as a trip on a jet aircraft from New York to London. It's as certain as your posts on this very forum. It's as certain as the fact that you have a magic box in your kitchen that keeps food cold. It's as certain as the setting of a broken leg. It's as certain as fire burning things. It's as certain as the Sun in the sky.

All of these, according to you, are "theories." Looks like you've made a basic category error, @Lenni: theories are more certain than anything you've ever said.

Which is not too surprising since you don't "believe in" math. That would be because you can't do any.

I used to post differential equations and challenge you to solve them; I've found that this gives you too much credit.

Derive KE = 1/2mv² from E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Credit to @RNP for detecting this gaping hole in @Lenni's brain armor.

Good luck with that, @Lenni the Liar.

Apr 04, 2017
The deniers think everyone else is stupid. The fact is, by being inconsistent, and ignoring consilience, it is they who are stupid. They think no one will notice. Against all evidence.


......and none other than you being a "denier". You deny that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT,

Here mister self appointed genius, take this equation & insert a solution for infinite gravity into it F = GmM/r², assign any other number you want on the other side of the equation & explain why the answer you get is incalculable. Oh, you don't know what I mean by inserting a number to solve the equation for infinite gravity? Ok, I'll guess I need to do it for you below:

∞mM/r² = ∞ , there this is how you do it, now tell us, what Law of Physics is this? I'll make a suggestion........no law, just Perpetual Motion.

Schneibo, you need to find a different retirement career, this ain't the place.

Apr 04, 2017
@Lenni,

Derive KE = 1/2mv² from E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

That is all.

Apr 04, 2017
Better get used to that, @Lenni. Finding out you can't even do simple algebra reveals you for what you are. You're gonna see it a LOT.

Apr 04, 2017
@Lenni,

Derive KE = 1/2mv² from E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

That is all.


Proving why you need to find a different retirement career, you don't know the difference between calculating the work energy of MASS & the energy of an Electro-magnetic wave. If you understood the simple algebra you wouldn't be screwing this up so badly. You must be having a lonely life.

Apr 04, 2017
You're innumerate, @Lenni. And jealous. Face it.

Apr 04, 2017
And just as a reminder:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Apr 05, 2017
So when anyone.... claiming there are no black holes

They are only sticking to the observed facts ( BH's are missing from all of our OBSERVATIONS), which puts them a leg up. The mainstream are the ones making claims. So until the EHT actually images an event horizon (still not sure how this will work when observing a region that emits photons but hey, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now), BH's will always be a theory based on gravitational physics, no event horizon image will prove it is a flawed theory.

You'd be right if you realized the EH is what we see now... They're trying to see the actual gravitational anomaly that creates it....


Apr 05, 2017
We measure the mass of the Sun using the radii and velocities of its satellites (i.e. planets). See the NASA webpage https://imagine.g...ass.html .

So, if you think the THEORY of gravity does not apply in the case of the galactic center you will have to present a reason why this should be true. Otherwise you can not expect anybody to take your post as just another bunch of pseudo-scientific claptrap.

Yeah, but....
The volumetric ratios are different....

Apr 05, 2017
Oh, and by the way, gravity has been measured in the lab. In fact, it was done over 200 years ago: https://en.wikipe...periment

Cavendish's results were accurate to within 2%. Excellent for the 18th century, I'd say. Various other experiments have been performed since, notably Schlamminger et al, Newman et al, and Gundlach and Merkowitz, to give three of the most accurate and precise. Current measurements run to six or seven significant figures precision and are accurate to within 20 parts per million.

So when you whine "Oh, it's only a THEORY," keep in mind that this theory has been confirmed in the lab and observed in space. We have used it to send spacecraft to the farthest reaches of the Solar System and beyond, and we use it every day to make GPS work. Looks like a pretty darn good theory to me. Just sayin'.

Good, but only locally....

Apr 05, 2017
Now stop whining.

Now all you need to do is learn why the maximum attraction of ALL gravitating bodies is from its surface & not its center, just the opposite of your bogus theory of the structure of BHs.

Only if - surface density is same as center density.
Otherwise - incorrect.

RNP
Apr 05, 2017
@bschott
On the tiny scale of the central BH, the DM effect is negligible.

Paraphrasing this statement within the bounds of both theoretical objects: The most gravitationally attractive object we think exists in the galaxy has very little effect on and is practically not effected by 4/5 of the matter in the galaxy, despite the fact that this matter ONLY reacts to gravity....
You would know this if you had any knowledge of the physics you are trying to discuss.

You aren't even discussing physics at this point....


Again, you do not understand the physics. DM is so extremely diffuse it is negligible when considered on the scale of the solar system, or the central black hole. It is only when the whole volume of the galaxy that it pervades is considered that it comes to be significant, and comes to dominate the total mass.

In future learn the physics before you start repudiating other's ACCURATE depiction of it.

RNP
Apr 05, 2017
@Benni
@Lenni,

Derive KE = 1/2mv² from E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

That is all.


Proving why you need to find a different retirement career, you don't know the difference between calculating the work energy of MASS & the energy of an Electro-magnetic wave. If you understood the simple algebra you wouldn't be screwing this up so badly. You must be having a lonely life.


Every time you post you reveal more of your ignorance.

Leaving aside the fact that the phrase "the work energy of MASS" is gibberish, the equation above is Einstein's equation for the energy of ANY particle. Da Schneib has already derived the energy of a (zero mass) photon for you. Do you not recognize the E=pc equation Da Schneib derived for the energy of a photon? Do you not see the E=mc² derivation for a massive particle at rest?

If not, then you CLEARLY do not understand Special Relativity.

BTW. This also explains why you can not derive KE=mv²/2 from the equation either.

Apr 05, 2017
BTW. This also explains why you can not derive KE=mv²/2 from the equation either.


Yep, that's what I was pointing out & look how long it took for you to figure it out. But it's easy to guess you will still try to apply KE= 1/2mv² to a photon anytime I'm not here to correct you.

Hey, where's your calculation for the force of gravity needed to prevent a photon from reaching Escape Velocity? I already know the answer to this & you can't prove it's wrong, it's infinite gravity & you can't prove I'm wrong except by false application of KE= 1/2mv² which has nothing to do with the nature of electro-magnetic wave energy.

The two of you need to head to the local bookstore & get a book on high school level physics so you can figure out why Infinite gravity & density cannot exist at the center of a stellar mass called BHs.

RNP
Apr 05, 2017
@Benni
LOL. NOBODY applies KE=mv²/2 to photons! So you are again talking out of your rear end.

I notice that STILL you can not do the derivations requested and are trying the obfuscation approach to hide the fact.

RNP
Apr 05, 2017
@bschott
You also don't seem to understand how particles only affected by gravity MUST move, and how such particles could NEVER remain in a diffuse concentration...IOW, you don't understand Jackshit.


WRONG.

You have failed to realize the significance of the fact that DM only interacts by gravity. For such particles there is no process by which they can interact, loose energy and condense. Therefore, they MUST "remain in a diffuse concentration". AGAIN, learn the physics before you comment, and particularly before you insult someone that understands it better than you.

Apr 05, 2017
NOBODY applies KE=mv²/2 to photons! So you are again talking out of your rear end.


You & Schneibo continually do it anytime you think someone isn't around to catch you trying it, it's how Schneibo justifies creating math that suggests that photons can be reduced to an Escape Velocity in which the gravity field is less than infinite.

I notice that STILL you can not do the derivations requested and are trying the obfuscation approach to hide the fact.


........but still you keep trying it, . Your so-called "derivations" are so badly mis-applied, you write one thing this post & then write something else the next one when you think knowledgeable people aren't looking. Your mindset is, how can we fool them today as compared to how we did it yesterday then surreptitiously try to apply 1/2mv² to the Escape Velocity of a photon.

You just hate it when your BH/DM pseudo-science comes up against the reality of the Laws of Physics.

RNP
Apr 05, 2017
@Benni
You have admitted that, even though you are only an amateur scientist, you do not want to learn by looking at the links I provide. So, this time, rather than provide a link to the necessary derivation, I will do it for you here.

We start with the equation for escape velocity:

v²=2GM/R

To form a black hole, all that is required it that the escape velocity is c or above. So, for an escape velocity of c we get an event horizon of radius Re given by:

Re= 2GM/c²

Now for density d;

M =4πr³d/3 (π=pi)

So a little bit of algebra shows that the minimum required density to form a black hole is:

d=3c²/(8πGRe²)

NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT INFINITE, and only becomes infinite IF r goes to zero. Therefore, your claim that infinite density is required to form a black hole is demonstrably false.

I do not know how many times this has to be explained to you, but your credibility goes down even further every time somebody has to do it.

Apr 05, 2017
"At the center of a black hole lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity)becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

d=3c²/(8πGRe²)

NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT INFINITE, and only becomes infinite IF r goes to zero. Therefore, your claim that infinite density is required to form a black hole is demonstrably false.


When you Journalists attempt to apply your version of math to BHs to get around the infinite gravity problem, you'd first better learn how your own pseudo-science aficionados define a BH as I Copied & pasted above.

Apr 05, 2017
Re= 2GM/c²

Now for density d;

M =4πr³d/3 (π=pi)

So a little bit of algebra shows that the minimum required density to form a black hole is:

d=3c²/(8πGRe²)


.......now the only thing you need to add to your math is applying 1/2mv² to a photon & you'd be finished with your Perpetual Motion Machine. Your basic problem being that you still do not comprehend the Laws of Physics in which Electro-magnetic Waves are not subject to 1/2mv² & therefore by none of the math you try subjecting them to, and this doesn't even include your goofy reverse application of the Inverse Square Law.

RNP
Apr 05, 2017
@bschott, Benni
You posts are ridiculous. Neither of you understand the physics of the subjects you are discussing, and you have both shown yourselves to be both unwilling and unable to learn. I will therefore leave you wallow in your ignorance.

Apr 05, 2017
@bschott, Benni
You posts are ridiculous. Neither of you understand the physics of the subjects you are discussing, and you have both shown yourselves to be both unwilling and unable to learn. I will therefore leave you wallow in your ignorance.


Purveyors of Perpetual Motion, like you, always think there's a way around the Laws of Physics, like trying to apply 1/2mv² to Electro-magnetic Waves just so you can sidestep the Infinite Gravity issue that is part & parcel with BH Theory.

You don't even understand why BH theory requires a gravitating body of infinite gravity as I pointed out to you from the WkiPedia site.

For understandable reasons to me, I understand why you only want to talk about BH DENSITY which is only half the BH Equation. You don't want to get into the other half of the BH Equation which is the INFINITE GRAVITY requirement. Then to top it all off, you don't even understand why within BH Theory that DENSITY must also be infinite.

Apr 05, 2017
@RNP, they're innumerate; they can't do physics if they can't do math. Every post they make shows their innumeracy as they dance, twist, spin, whine, and try to change the subject to avoid actually having to do real math.

They probably don't understand how you got v²=2GM/R to turn into Re= 2GM/c². Let's keep in mind that @Lenni has claimed to be able to work with DEs, despite not being able to actually do them when presented with them.

There is little or no point in talking to people who pretend to know things about physics and make outrageous claims when they can't do simple algebra. It's like claiming to be a surgeon when you don't know anatomy, or claiming to be a mechanic when you can't adjust a carburetor. Simple silliness.

Apr 05, 2017
@RNP.

Re 'exotic' DM: Your "ignorance of physics" retorts to bschott might carry more weight if you yourself didn't keep ignoring new mainstream observations and my question to you re same; to wit: the GR dynamics/motions of visible stars/features in our galaxy track/correlate closely with the visible ordinary matter in the galaxy. So IF there was 85% MORE matter the GR dynamics/motions would be much more extreme, but they are not so extreme. So your 'exotic' DM distribution/behavior claims are inconsistent with the mainstream observations now. You can't have it both ways; either it is diffusely distributed or closely follows ordinary matter distributions/motions. Please clarify which of these two alternative behaviors is your claim before again responding to bschott based on your 'exotic' DM claims. That way you both will be on the same (your) page for the subsequent exchanges re the DM controversy. That will be a great help to observers of your DM 'takes'. Thanks.

Apr 05, 2017
So IF there was 85% MORE matter the GR dynamics/motions would be much more extreme
Why? This is handwaving even if the DM were present in an even distribution only across the visible parts of galaxies.

And it's not, and that makes your problem even worse: it's is even more obvious when we can see that DM being the solution to the galaxy rotation question means that a fair bit of it is actually outside the visible matter in the galaxies we can see. Look at the rotation curves; they're flat out to the edge of the visible portions of the galaxies. Look at the rotation curve for M33: https://en.wikipe...e_HI.gif What I'm saying is obvious from that. The rotation deviation continues out for more than 2.5x the visible distance, indicating the DM must be distributed much farther even than that.

Your claim is completely footless, @RC, as usual.

Apr 05, 2017
And that's completely leaving aside the fact that this article is not about DM but about black holes, and specifically about the one at the center of our galaxy. So you're off topic as well, and trying to change the subject again. What you're saying doesn't even relate to the subject at hand.

Tsk tsk, @RC. You're busted again.

Apr 05, 2017
You'd be right if you realized the EH is what we see now...

Whyde, we see photons. Beyond that EVERYTHING is theory at this point, including the statement you made above...essentially you have been told you are seeing an event horizon ...

The EH is the last point a photon is still above escape velocity, so still visible.
The theory they are using ..., in no way does it support a theory that a certain amount of mass in a region results in it's infinite collapse.

No one claims infinite collapse. That would take ALL the mass in the universe to do...
It's only maximum density of a matter collection that is reached.
No matter what is stated as the reasons for the BH/DM devout to believe these things exist, none of said reasons directly verify the existence of them.
That's why they are building this observation methodology.

Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.

This is why your comments often inconsistent/rude; because you fail to realize those inconsistencies before opening your big mouth to make unfounded insults/accusations which fly against record/context of both this thread's discussions and mainstream findings which NOW conflict with obsolete erroneous claims you keep repeating/wanting it both ways.

Get it straight:

MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features. So IF 'exotic' DM added 85% EXTRA matter, then gravitational profiles/motions/strengths would be MORE EXTREME than observed.

So, your "busted" etc claims are PREMATURE....as always when you open your big mouth to insult/lie instead of actually CHECKING THE LATEST developments/discoveries etc from MAINSTREAM itself.

And my 'exotic' DM-related post WAS on topic of RNP-bschott's side-discussion. Look/Learn, mate.

Apr 05, 2017
BH/DM devout
@Whyde, false equivalences aren't adding anything to the conversation, and you shouldn't be swallowing them as you appear to be doing here.

As @RNP showed above, there is a specific prediction (and note that this is Newtonian TUG math, not the more complex and slightly more accurate Einsteinian GR math) for what average density a body has to have to form an event horizon. Note as well that because gravity declines within a body due to the shell theorem, if the event horizon cannot form outside the body, there will be no event horizon.

Note also that the thing about math is, you can actually check whether it's right or not directly. This is why physicists use math.

@RNP is conducting a tour-de-force (pun intended) explanation of these matters right in front of us. This is great stuff and you should be paying close attention; you're not getting stormed with calculus, this is algebra. Bravo, @RNP, well done.

Apr 05, 2017
@RC
This is why your comments often inconsistent/rude
Try not to melt down so much you can't write proper English. It indicates you're flailing. Specifically, there is a verb, a form of "to be," that should be in that sentence fragment that is missing.

insults/accusations
Still flailing, and now paranoid; classic meltdown. Sorry, @RC, if the truth makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about that's not my fault. Get over it.

MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features.
Let's have a link to these observations you claim. You know, actual evidence instead of more of your handwaving.

I think that'll do. Let's see if you can actually make a serious response instead of all this BS you keep flinging around.

Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Are you really so insensibly drunk and/or dishonest in off-line life, mate? Why do you keep making it about me then pretending it's my fault that you are trolling me like this instead of getting back to the science?

And RNP has been discussing the matter arising from recent mainstream observations which I alluded to in context of RNP-bschott's side-discussion. If RNP is perfectly aware of the initial mainstream discovery in question, do you seriously now want us to believe you are not aware of said article/discovery in question? Do your own due diligence and/or just ask RNP to 'remind' you. Stop wasting everyone's time with your 'tactics' of delay, denial and just plain trolling the person instead of actually using your time to KEEP UP TO DATE with what's happening in mainstream NOW (not decades ago which has been superceded).

Here's your chance to return to science, DS; instead of more trolling/cluttering. Just address the relevant questions/logics. Thanks.

Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.

So, DS, can you get back to the science, and answer the question/logics I posed above, as follows:
MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features. So IF 'exotic' DM added 85% EXTRA matter, then gravitational profiles/motions/strengths would be MORE EXTREME than observed. So, your "busted" etc claims are PREMATURE....as always when you open your big mouth to insult/lie instead of actually CHECKING THE LATEST developments/discoveries etc from MAINSTREAM itself. And my 'exotic' DM-related post WAS on topic of RNP-bschott's side-discussion. Look/Learn, mate.
Thanks.

Apr 05, 2017
BH/DM devout
@Whyde, false equivalences aren't adding anything to the conversation, and you shouldn't be swallowing them as you appear to be doing here.

That was bschotts term, not mine.

Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.

So, DS, can you get back to the science, and answer the question/logics I posed above, as follows:
MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features. So IF 'exotic' DM added 85% EXTRA matter, then gravitational profiles/motions/strengths would be MORE EXTREME than observed. So, your "busted" etc claims are PREMATURE....as always when you open your big mouth to insult/lie instead of actually CHECKING THE LATEST developments/discoveries etc from MAINSTREAM itself. And my 'exotic' DM-related post WAS on topic of RNP-bschott's side-discussion. Look/Learn, mate.
Thanks.

Interesting. There wasn't a single question in there....

Apr 05, 2017
@Whyde.

@Da Schneib.

So, DS, can you get back to the science, and answer the question/logics I posed above, as follows:
MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features. So IF 'exotic' DM added 85% EXTRA matter, then gravitational profiles/motions/strengths would be MORE EXTREME than observed. So, your "busted" etc claims are PREMATURE....as always when you open your big mouth to insult/lie instead of actually CHECKING THE LATEST developments/discoveries etc from MAINSTREAM itself. And my 'exotic' DM-related post WAS on topic of RNP-bschott's side-discussion. Look/Learn, mate.
Thanks.

Interesting. There wasn't a single question in there....
That was but the latest form of the 'challenge' to RNP/Da Schneib re that (original/later form 'buried' by troll-shite). Now "questions/logics" is/are implied by context.

Apr 05, 2017
Interesting. There wasn't a single question in there....
That was but the latest form of the 'challenge' to RNP/Da Schneib re that (original/later form 'buried' by troll-shite). Now "questions/logics" is/are implied by context.

To "/" is to divide. The universe only adds....
PS - You're STILL the king of "/"...

Apr 06, 2017
@Whyde.
Interesting. There wasn't a single question in there....
That was but the latest form of the 'challenge' to RNP/Da Schneib re that (original/later form 'buried' by troll-shite). Now "questions/logics" is/are implied by context.

To "/" is to divide. The universe only adds....
PS - You're STILL the king of "/"...
And you're still posting troll-shite with the worst of them in order to 'bury' the science discourse so then they can pretend 'it never happened' and deny it while insulting some more. The 'gang' is proud of you, Whyde; and give you '5' for your every cowardly post and instance of dishonest complicity in their sabotage of this science site and its ratings metrics. You are becoming a very un-funny joke and purveyor of irrelevance even more than them, mate. Go have another drink with the gang, you've 'earned' it. Sad.

Apr 06, 2017
let me just leave this here

.

So, @@idiot lying pseudoscience earthling-club crackpot POS sam rc
can you get back to the science, and answer the question/logics I posed above (and here: https://phys.org/...rgy.html)]https://phys.org/...gy.html)[/url]

where are the 4 fatal flaws from the BICEP2 paper, which is freely available and open access as requested even by imfromcanada ( https://phys.org/...rgy.html ) and clearly noted that no validation of your claims exist

argument from "top secret" is troll-shite and proves you can't validate your claims

still

even after 6,372 posts

Here's your chance to return to science, DS; instead of more trolling/cluttering. Just address the relevant questions/logics. Thanks.

Your response (if you've finished stonewalling, denying, insulting)?

Apr 06, 2017
@Forum.

There it goes, right on cue, folks! The Stump, chief ass of a malignant bot-voting gang and site discussion saboteurs. Still wiping egg off their face from the Bicep2 fiasco and subsequent exposure of their gang's sabotaging/cluttering campaigns here and elsewhere. It's a testament to human self-deceit that he can still deny it all and keep pretending to himself and the gang that he is in any way objective or relevant when it comes to telling ALL the truth instead of half-truths; denial, then hypocritically whining when his victims dare to defend/respond appropriately. Don't you just hate it, folks? When a troll gang gets exactly what they dish out and then whine as if the 'bar taps in the hideout had run dry'? It would be very funny if it wasn't so serious: they sabotage, lie, bury the science discussion under their troll-shite....and then go away all 'proud' of their handiwork of troll-shite. Woe betide anyone proving them wrong on the science! Sad losers.

Apr 06, 2017
Still waiting for a link to these "MAINSTREAM(sic) observations" you're claiming, @RC. I'm sorry but after you lied and tried to cheat on the other thread I don't think there's anyone who would question that every single thing you say needs to be backed up by a reputable source before anyone should bother with it.

If you claimed the sky was blue, I'd want a link to a scientific paper by a reputable scholar who had measured the wavelength.

Oh, and your quote also is still off-topic; this is the thread about black holes, remember?

Still flailing, I see, @RC.

Apr 06, 2017
BH/DM devout
@Whyde, false equivalences aren't adding anything to the conversation, and you shouldn't be swallowing them as you appear to be doing here.

That was bschotts term, not mine.
Ah. OK, fair enough, as long as you're not buying the BS. You should quote it to make sure everyone knows it's not your own opinion.

Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Still waiting for a link to these "MAINSTREAM(sic) observations" you're claiming, @RC. I'm sorry but after you lied and tried to cheat on the other thread I don't think there's anyone who would question that every single thing you say needs to be backed up by a reputable source before anyone should bother with it.

If you claimed the sky was blue, I'd want a link to a scientific paper by a reputable scholar who had measured the wavelength.

Oh, and your quote also is still off-topic; this is the thread about black holes, remember?
Your claims/accusations based on your own flawed 'version' won't wash anymore, mate. You did that tactics in past instances (too many) where you jumped in accusing and insulting, only to be corrected and having to admit you were WRONG and ill informed. Why keep trying a failed tactics like that, DS? Have you no sense at all? No memory of past failures?

Anyhow, your initial 'answer' ignored the new evidence. Try again, DS.

Apr 06, 2017
To top it all off, I made a post above where I asked why we should accept your claim that there "would be" "more extreme" effects, type unspecified, because of dark matter. You have not responded. Instead we get more whining.

I also pointed out that rotation curves indicate that the halos of dark matter must have much larger radii than those of the galaxies they incorporate and surround in order for the rotation effects we see to occur, and anybody who knows any geometry knows that a sphere's volume increases as the square of its radius, indicating the volume of the halo is of order ten times the volume of the galaxy (and it's even worse than that because spiral galaxies resemble a pancake much more than a sphere). So that means that only around 10% or less of the dark matter is actually inside the galaxy; the remainder is outside it. And you haven't replied to that, either, and we're still getting more whining from you, and more insults.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.

Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
To top it all off, I made a post above where I asked why we should accept your claim that there "would be" "more extreme" effects, type unspecified, because of dark matter. You have not responded...
They would be obvious logical physical GR consequences IF the galaxy mass WITHIN the galaxy had an extra 85% added to the distribution profiles of the visible matter which the researchers said closely correlated to stellar etc motions WITHIN the galaxy. Just add an extra 85% matter to your GR 'calculations' and see the point. :)

I also pointed out that rotation curves indicate that the halos of dark matter must have much larger radii than those of the galaxies they incorporate and surround in order for the rotation effects we see to occur,
This side-issue relates to WITHIN-galaxy motions/distributions; because observers NOW see motions INSIDE galaxy closely tracked/correlated with ORDINARY matter. Hence obvious question as posed earlier.

Apr 06, 2017
obvious logical physical GR consequences
What consequences are those, exactly? And what evidence do you present to back this claim up? We need links to reputable sources, or verifiable mathematical arguments that we can fact-check. Until you show this one way or the other, you're still just hand waving.

side-issue
You claim 85% increase in mass, whereas the actual fact is 90% of the dark matter isn't even in the galaxy. Doesn't look like a "side issue" to me. Looks like you can't do math.

It still must be Flailsday. You're making unsubstantiated claims and trying to weasel out of them (your own words) and denigrating arguments you are apparently incapable of understanding.

The meltdown continues.

Tsk tsk, @RC.

Apr 06, 2017
Da Schneib.
obvious logical physical GR consequences
What consequences are those, exactly?
You deny logical physical implications for GR gravitational strengths and dynamics profiles of 85% EXTRA mass closely located/distributed along with the visible matter content within the galaxy? If so, it's your onus to explain how that would NOT change the dynamics/strengths etc drastically. Please go ahead.
side-issue
You claim 85% increase in mass, whereas the actual fact is 90% of the dark matter isn't even in the galaxy.
You have NO IDEA of what the relevant mainstream research uncovered, have you, DS? The WITHIN-GALAXY motions CLOSELY CORRELATE to the visible mass WITHIN THE GALAXY. If you still haven't got that straight, then no wonder you are in the dark re what RNP, bschott (and I) have been referring to and side-discussing here and there since the original thread/article reported that mainstream finding.

DS, ask RNP to inform you, then talk.

Apr 06, 2017
You deny logical physical implications for GR gravitational strengths and dynamics profiles of 85% EXTRA mass closely located/distributed along with the visible matter content within the galaxy?
1. I deny nothing. I was asking what your claim is. You still haven't told us what "consequences" you claim will happen.
2. You haven't produced either math or physics, or a link to any reputable source of math or physics, that there would be any such "extreme" "consequences" from observed dynamics, of any kind.
3. It's not "closely located/distributed;" 90% of it is completely outside the visible portions of the galaxies.

[contd]

Apr 06, 2017
[contd]
The WITHIN-GALAXY motions CLOSELY CORRELATE to the visible mass WITHIN THE GALAXY.
1. You still haven't produced any evidence to back up this claim.
2. If 90% of the dark matter is outside the visible part of the galaxies, then only 10% of the dark matter is within them. Thus it makes perfect sense that the visible parts would show little difference from the expected dynamics.
3. In any case, such "close correlations" obviously are incorrect since they can't explain the flat rotation curves, much less the increasing rotation curves of hydrogen surrounding the galaxies that we can see with radio telescopes.

More spurious, unsupported, incorrect arguments from you, @RC. Not to mention continued self-aggrandizement, insults, and whining, as you do in every post you make.

The meltdown continues.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, @RC.

Apr 06, 2017
Oh, and continuing right along, a discussion of dark matter dynamics is *still* off topic on a thread about an article on the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.

Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.

It is your claim that 90% of 'exotic DM is OUTSIDE the galaxy, right?

BUT now the mainstream discovery is that the INSIDE-THE-GALXY motions of stars etc are CLOSELY CORRELATED to visible matter distribution etc INSIDE THE GALAXY. Which IMPLIES that the SUPPOSED 'exotic' DM is MOSTLY INSIDE the galaxy.

Do you understand now why YOU NEED TO RECONCILE, EXPLAIN how and why most of the 'exotic' DM can be BOTH INSIDE and OUTSIDE the galaxy to produce the observed mptions which mainstream NOW says is closely correlated ONLY with the INTERNAL mass distribution etc?

If you are not sober enough to 'get' it, wait until tomorrow and try again. THEN see that what you are saying and what the mainstream is now saying effectively would have it BOTH ways if your and their claims were correct! You can't have it both ways, mate. Choose. Either your claims are obsolete/wrong; or you are implying the new mainstream discovery is wrong. Explain please. Tomorrow, when you're lucid.

Apr 06, 2017
@RC, rotation curves. And you still haven't posted a reputable source that says that the rotation curves are explained by the visible matter in the galaxies, so it's footless anyway.

This is useless. You'll obfuscate and outright lie until the cows come home, and to anybody actually paying attention you've just confirmed it.

You're weaseling again, @RC.

You're lying again, @RC.

You're boring again, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.

I'm gonna go read.

Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.

We're NOT talking about MY claims; we're talking about the NEW mainstream observations which CORRELATE STRONGLY the stellar etc motions WITHIN the galaxy to the distributin/dynamics OF the visible matter distribution WITHIN the galaxy. Get it?

The previous "Rotation Curve" arguments NOW moot; since the previous basis for the previous mainstream claims is NOW OPEN TO QUESTION because of the relevant NEW mainstream observations. Get that?

Only by 'wanting it both ways' can you (illogically) claim that everything is still according to the previous claims form 'exotic' DM; so it's up to YOU/RNP et al to justify sticking to the 'old' 'interpretations/claims' re exotic DM etc. Get that?

DS, please ASK RNP to fill you in on the new mainstream observation and this consequential side-discussion. Do that; then talk.

Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, ...You're weaseling again, @RC.

You're lying again, @RC.

You're boring again, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.
Why does this have a familiar ring to it? Oh yes, that was EXACTLY the tactics you used many times in the past when you jumped to the attack while being WOEFULLY INADEQUATELY INFORMED about the science/subject matter in question. Every time, EVENTUALLY, you stopped insulting and started actually LOOKING at the evidence/posts which PROVED YOU WERE WRONG all the while you were maniacally (drunkenly?) denying, accusing, distracting etc but had to admit your error finally. Don't you have a memory, mate? Or has the drinking put paid to that; and that is why you REPEAT your unfounded attacks and errors again and again. Stop it, DS. It's not healthy. LOOK FIRST and GET ALL THE FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU EGO-JUMP to insensible/drunk 'attack mode'. Go sleep it off. Then tomorrow ask RNP to fill you in. Then talk. Good luck.

Apr 06, 2017
Here is some science to do for the crank brigade: please explain the orbits of the stars around an invisible entity at the centre of the galaxy. To explain these long studied orbits, mainstream (i.e. real) scientists need to invoke an object of ~ 4 million solar masses. There is certainly something there, and it is invisible. So, cranks, let's have it; what is it? Please explain, with the relevant maths and equations. Can't be that difficult. Go.

Apr 06, 2017
The question I posed above is almost certainly rhetorical. It will never be answered by these loons. One, because they don't have the necessary skills. Two, because they are just regurgitating crap from other cranks such as Thornhill and Crothers. Who themselves are incapable of doing the necessary science. In other words, they are equally loony. It is oh so easy to come to a place like this, and claim 'mainstream is wrong'. It is quite another thing to provide a proper scientific alternative, with the relevant (and requisite) maths and equations.
That is why these people are all talk and no trousers. Blowhards, that is.

Apr 06, 2017
Here is a thought for the cranks on this thread; if you are incapable of figuring out the answer to the question I posed, how about contacting whichever crank that you are a fanboy of, and asking them? And then, instead of overtaxing what counts for your grey matter, you can just regurgitate more of their crap. I'm sure it will give us all some much needed laughter.

Apr 06, 2017
So, cranks, let's have it; what is it? Please explain, with the relevant maths and equations. Can't be that difficult. Go.


Well jonesy, you can read about it below & at the link I provided. These stars are OBSERVED moving at even higher velocity than the ones you claim are orbiting an UNOBSERVABLE Mass that you imagine is a BH. Didn't even need "relevant maths and equations", they used a real telescope & spectroscopy to get REAL images.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

"After a decade of mystery, astronomers have now shown that a pair of white dwarf stars spin around each other in just 5.4 minutes, making them the fastest-orbiting and tightest binary star system ever found, the researchers claim.

The record-setting stellar duo, known as HM Cancri or RX J0806.3+1527, offer challenges in explaining how such a system might form."

http://www.space....tes.html

RNP
Apr 06, 2017
@Benni
These stars are OBSERVED moving at even higher velocity than the ones you claim are orbiting an UNOBSERVABLE Mass that you imagine is a BH.


You are confusing things again. The authors of the link you proved say the system is the "fastest-orbiting and tightest binary star system ever found", they do not actually mention velocities in the paper (only the the extrmely short period) and they most certainly do not compare it to the velocities of stars orbiting BHs.

To prove it, as I know you have been enjoying it, lets do some maths! For the mass (0.12 solar masses) and orbital period (320 seconds) given in the literature ( e.g. https://arxiv.org...3043.pdf ), the actual speed of the two stars is a staggering 700 km/sec or so. However, this is still small compared to the observed velocity of significantly more than 2000 km/sec for stars orbiting the BH at the center of the Milky Way.


Apr 06, 2017
These stars are OBSERVED moving at even higher velocity than the ones you claim are orbiting an UNOBSERVABLE Mass that you imagine is a BH.


You are confusing things again. The authors of the link you proved say the system is the "fastest-orbiting and tightest binary star system ever found", they do not actually mention velocities in the paper (only the the extrmely short period) and they most certainly do not compare it to the velocities of stars orbiting BHs.


......you are the one trying yet again to confuse things. Here are stars OBSERVATIONALLY orbiting one another at rates of velocity that jonesy claims can occur only in the presence of a BH. All you're doing now is creating excuses for jonesy's bad math skills, and you're own as well.

RNP
Apr 06, 2017
@Benni
Here are stars OBSERVATIONALLY orbiting one another at rates of velocity that jonesy claims can occur only in the presence of a BH.

Now, rather than just misrepresenting a paper, you are blatantly inventing things!

NOWHERE has "jonesy" given an indication of the velocities that "can occur only in the presence of a BH", and he/she has most certainly not said anything about how the velocities in this binary star system compare.

NOWHERE do the authors of the paper mention velocities (despite your desire to read them into a single, carefully selected quote), and they certainly do not compare them to velocities of stars orbiting black holes.

Your post above can therefore only be interpreted as a pathetic attempt at deception.

The simple math provided in my previous post also PROVES that you claim is false. If you want to argue the maths I presented then PRODUCE some maths to prove your point. After all, as a "nuclear engineer" it should not be difficult for you.

Apr 06, 2017
If you want to argue the maths I presented then PRODUCE some maths to prove your point. After all, as a "nuclear engineer" it should not be difficult for you.


.......and you have math(s) that prove an established Law of Physics, the Inverse Square Law, can be twisted into a reverse application to "prove" infinite gravity & infinite density can exist at the center of a finite stellar mass called a black hole.

Then when you can't prove such a finite BH stellar body can exist as anything but Perpetual Motion, you try to impose 1/2mv² on electro-magnetic energy in a cockamamie fashion to "prove" there is a force of gravity that is strong enough to prevent a photon from reaching escape velocity, and you invent math(s) for proof of that too.

You journalists need to stay out of the realm of Physics, you just look foolish trying to come off with this business of "How Can We Fool them Today" with your creative Perpetual Motion Math.

Apr 06, 2017
@Benni, @RNP, @jonesdave et al.

Observational Evidence and GR Theory says 'some' Physical factor(s) 'causing' the galactic-nucleus structure/dynamics to form/remain stable over long period.

Your arguments: ie, whether a massive body is responsible for the dynamics/structure of a galactic nucleus or not, should also consider the following:

- EITHER there is a common barycenter that is 'empty' of massive BH (Dark Star) type gravitating body-----OR-----there is some such massive 'dark star' which forms its own Event Horizon as hypothesized based on GR acceleration values overwhelming all EM radiation at EH due to extrem GR acceleration there;

- RECALL that Photons 'falling' radially 'down' in Earth's 'weaker' gravity-well do NOT 'speed up' to SUPER-luminal velocities; NOR do 'outgoing' Photons 'slow' to SUB-luminal velocities; so how can even EXTREME BH EH/gravity-well 'speed up' OR 'slow down' Photons?

Ponder the implications for your respective arguments. Cheers. :)

Apr 06, 2017
PS to previous:

If the photons do not slow when radially or tangentially directed up/past the BH/EH 'surface boundary', then they may be 'redshifted' or left 'unshifted' as the case may be (radially upwards or tangential). So....what SHOULD we 'see/detect' from 'here' if that is the case? Pondering the answers/implications of that may help your own perspectives be closer to reality than at present, on both 'sides'. Cheers. :)

Apr 07, 2017
A comedian wrote;
"RECALL that Photons 'falling' radially 'down' in Earth's 'weaker' gravity-well do NOT 'speed up' to SUPER-luminal velocities; NOR do 'outgoing' Photons 'slow' to SUB-luminal velocities; so how can even EXTREME BH EH/gravity-well 'speed up' OR 'slow down' Photons?"

Can I laugh now? Please?

Apr 07, 2017
@Zerg.
A comedian wrote;
"RECALL that Photons 'falling' radially 'down' in Earth's 'weaker' gravity-well do NOT 'speed up' to SUPER-luminal velocities; NOR do 'outgoing' Photons 'slow' to SUB-luminal velocities; so how can even EXTREME BH EH/gravity-well 'speed up' OR 'slow down' Photons"
Laugh away, mate. But check it out with the known science understandings/literature. Then keep laughing while you troll-shite-and-chuckle away whatever is left of your pretense of being in any way competent or honest enough to judge anything or anyone. Your off-line life must really be a mess if the same level of 'competence and honesty' as you have shown here so far applies in your off-llne life and mouth-crapping too. Start again, mate. Do/Be better next time. Re-register under yet another username....which raises obvious questions: What happened before that necessitated you dropping your previous username(s) and re-registering under @ZergSurfer?....was it as bad as this time round?).

Apr 08, 2017
@RC
Hey, knock me all you like, gotta validate yourself somehow, so blame me for your ignorance, I really don't mind :) Gotta go, Nursey is telling me lights out, cya later :)

Apr 08, 2017
RECALL that Photons 'falling' radially 'down' in Earth's 'weaker' gravity-well do NOT 'speed up' to SUPER-luminal velocities; NOR do 'outgoing' Photons 'slow' to SUB-luminal velocities; so how can even EXTREME BH EH/gravity-well 'speed up' OR 'slow down' Photons?
This is what comes of not knowing any actual physics.

Photons don't slow down or speed up. They lose or gain momentum. When their momentum changes, their frequency changes; when their frequency changes, their energy changes. Photons attempting to exit through a gravity field with an escape velocity greater than light change their energy to zero. Thus, no photon. And, of course, no speeding up or slowing down required.

On the dark energy thread, @RNP posted this equation:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Apparently @RC doesn't know enough math or physics to understand what it means.

You are innumerate, @RC.

Or else you're lying again.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.

Apr 08, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Don't you ever learn? You 'jump in' AGAIN; all hot and bothered and pretending to 'correct' me while insulting me; based on YOUR OWN misconstruing of what was said/implied.

READ IT AGAIN, DS. I already covered the increase/decrease in energy/momentum angle in the 'redshifting (or blueshifting) aspect from observational evidence. THAT WAS THE POINT and WHY I THEN made the UNCHANGING SPEED OF PHOTON reminder....so that all concerned could THEN further ponder what is actually happening in that energy-space in a gravity well, be it 'extreme' (BH/EH) gravity-well OR be it 'lesser strength' (eg, Earth') gravity-well.

DS, seriously, your 'ego-need' to attack/correct and/or 'show off' for your 'gang mates', is leading you to become the 'antithesis' of an objective scientific respectful intellect/discourser. It leads you to mistaken KNEEJERKING because you DON'T take time and CARE to cpmprehend what is being said IN THE CONTEXT. This has happened TOO OFTEN now. Learn!

Apr 08, 2017
@Zerg.
@RC
Hey, knock me all you like, gotta validate yourself somehow, so blame me for your ignorance, I really don't mind :) Gotta go, Nursey is telling me lights out, cya later :)
That's even more rich, mate. You troll-shite all over and make unjustified unsupported assertions and insults and you then call me "ignorant" and "knocking" etc? You're not a scientist or a logician or even a man in touch with reality let alone humanity, are you? Else you wouldn't be disrespecting the one who reminds of the ethics and principles which true science, logics and humanity discourse are founded on. @Zerg, you keep this up and you may soon make it necessary for you to slink away again and re-register under yet another username, because this one is fast becoming well and truly tarnished by the troll-shite which you have chosen to dump here again, just like your previous "TehDog" persona did. Do/Be better under your new re-registration here next time round, mate.

Apr 08, 2017
@RC, there's just no point. Either you don't know enough to understand why you're wrong, or you know it perfectly well and you're lying.

And it doesn't matter which any more. You burned that bridge a long time ago.

Photons don't change speed when they gain or lose energy. They change frequency (or, if you prefer, wavelength). This has been repeatedly and conclusively proven by experiment. If you don't understand this, there's no point in talking to you.

Apr 08, 2017
@Da Schneib.
there's just no point. Either you don't know enough to understand why you're wrong, or you know it perfectly well and you're lying.

And it doesn't matter which any more. You burned that bridge a long time ago.

Photons don't change speed when they gain or lose energy. They change frequency (or, if you prefer, wavelength). This has been repeatedly and conclusively proven by experiment. If you don't understand this, there's no point in talking to you.
Are you REALLY this dense, DS? Or didn't you READ my post where that comment was excerpted from by @Zerg? I am the one who reminded everyone that phtons DO NOT SPEED UP OR SLOW DOWN in gravity wells, ffs! Why the hell do you KEEP MISSING THAT, saying I don't understand that?

Are you DRUNK again, DS? If so, STOP drunk posting before you really hurt yourself twisting everything into your own drunken 'version' of what was said/understood already by me that YOU just CONFIRMED me CORRECT in. How MANY times, DS?

Apr 08, 2017
And now revisionist history, when your quote is right there.

Forget it, @RC, you're boring.

Apr 08, 2017
@DA Schneib.
And now revisionist history, when your quote is right there.

Forget it, @RC, you're boring.
Ok, here it is:
RECALL that Photons 'falling' radially 'down' in Earth's 'weaker' gravity-well do NOT 'speed up' to SUPER-luminal velocities; NOR do 'outgoing' Photons 'slow' to SUB-luminal velocities; so how can even EXTREME BH EH/gravity-well 'speed up' OR 'slow down' Photons?
Now, DS, what does the FIRST PART of that compound sentence say? See? I reminded everyone that the photons do NOT slow/speed up. The second part merely reflected the MISCONCEPTION which many people are laboring under when they argue about BH/EH 'trapping' photons, so I asked them to consider the fact I reminded of in the first part: that photons do NOT slow/speed up. READ the WHOLE ORIGINAL POST and WHOLE ORIGINAL CONTEXT next time, DS. Then maybe you won't mistakenly do this "boring/kneejerking" thing again and again and again. Ok now? Good. Thanks.

Apr 08, 2017
Because you're innumerate and don't know any physics, @RC, you don't immediately see that gravity reduces momentum, not velocity; the reduction in velocity is a consequence of the reduction in momentum. Velocity is not conserved; momentum is; therefore its change is the cause, not the effect. Photons may not be able to change their velocity, but they certainly can change their momentum; and that's just what gravity does to them.

And a little bit more calculation would make it intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that if the escape velocity is the speed of light, that means that the gravity field will reduce the momentum of any photon to zero before it can escape the field.

This is what @Zerg was pointing out, @RC. You completely missed the point because you don't know any physics and you're innumerate. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, because it's also possible you knew and were just lying again.

Apr 08, 2017
And the obvious question is, why is someone who is innumerate and unphysical blathering about black holes? They obviously know, and can know, nothing about the subject whatsoever.

This is risible. @RC's made a fool of itself again.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.

Apr 08, 2017
This actually leads to a very important and basic area of physics: the idea of a symmetry.

When physicists talk about symmetries they are talking about things that remain unchanged in changing circumstances. And the most basic symmetries in physics are the symmetries of space and time.

The symmetry of space means that wherever we do an experiment we get the same results. I can do a quantum optics experiment in London, and someone in Beijing can do the same experiment and get the same results. For that matter, they can do it on the Moon, or at Alpha Centauri, and get the same results. The laws of physics are the same in all places.

The symmetry of time means that whenever we do an experiment we get the same results. I can do an experiment that someone did last week, or last month, or 300 years ago, and I will see the same thing they did. The laws of physics are the same at all times.

[contd]

Apr 08, 2017
[contd]
All of this is within reason, of course; one wouldn't expect to be able to do experiments on the surface of the Sun, for example. But the physical laws that the experiments show, apply equally on the surface of the Sun.

Now, why are these particular two symmetries, of time and space, so important when we talk about the equation @RNP posted on the dark energy thread?

The answer is very simple, and has some of the deepest implications in all of physics.

There is a mathematical theorem discovered by Emmy Noether, and called therefore Noether's Theorem, which states that any continuous symmetry (like these two we are talking about, space and time) indicates the existence of a corresponding conservation law. The corresponding conservation law to the symmetry over space is conservation of momentum; and the conservation law corresponding to time symmetry is conservation of energy.

[contd]

Apr 08, 2017
[contd]
This makes these two conservation laws foundational and basic Laws of Nature, enforced by their corresponding symmetries. These are pretty much the two most important laws of nature in physics. And that's quite natural, since we're not even really sure what it means to talk about physics without time or space.

Now, let's go back to that equation:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
Here we have energy (E) equated to momentum and mass. So let's draw some inferences from these facts.

First, it's obvious that, since momentum is mass times velocity, a motionless object will have zero momentum; so in that case, the first term vanishes, and we have the well-known equation of Special Relativity Theory:
E = mc²
This shows that mass has energy all its own, just sitting there. And nuclear weapons and the light of the Sun are obvious proofs of this.

[contd]

Apr 08, 2017
[contd]
Second, it's equally obvious that photons have no mass; otherwise they could not move at c. So in this case, the second term vanishes, and we have
E = pc
This shows that photons have momentum. That's where their energy comes from. This is a result from SRT that is equal, but not equally recognized, to the famous equation above relating mass and energy.

So it's now obvious that energy and momentum are the most fundamental of quantities, and when we talk about the action of a force, such as gravity, we are talking about how it changes momentum; and equally obvious that changing the momentum, due to the full version of the SRT equation that @RDP gave us, changes the energy. So it's quite natural, and emerges from the very structure of the dimensions of spacetime, that we talk about gravity changing momentum. This is the natural way to see this based on the character of reality.

[contd]

Apr 08, 2017
[contd]
So when we see someone confusing velocity with momentum, or momentum with mass, it's very clear exactly why anyone who knows anything about physics tells them they're a crackpot.

When you want to talk about physics, if you want to make sense, start from the dimensions, move on to energy and momentum, and work your way from there. That's how you do real physics. Mass, velocity, power, and all these other quantities are all derived from energy and momentum. Frequency is derived from time. Wavelength is derived from space. Forces act; and their actions modify energy and momentum, which in turn modify mass, velocity, power, frequency, wavelength, and so forth.

Now I'm gonna go read some more. That's your basic physics lesson for today.

Apr 08, 2017
@Da Scneib.
gravity reduces momentum, not velocity
What do you think my relevant post/reminder said, DS? It said/implied that energy/momentum of photon falling/rising in gravity-well increases/decreases, speed UNchanged.

Did you even read the original post/context? Did you even bother to understand what it said before you jumped to kneejerking ego-tripping attack mode, DS?

Look, DS, if you can't parse/properly comprehend the meaning of what is being said, and can't resist base urges to attack at the drop of a hat, then what good are you to science or humanity advance/discourse?

Please in future STOP: read; and re-read, carefully; until you do properly 'get' the subtleties/complexities being put into posts for those who DO take care to read and understand properly. Those who do not take care, and keep kneejerking from ego and personal animus, are only making noise; disrupting science and humanity discourse.

Take deep breaths, DS. Read. Again and again, if necessary.

Apr 08, 2017
PS @DaSchneib

I already knew what you explain above, DS. That's why I posed that reminder; and urged the re-pondering of usual BH/EH arguments in that light. The 'trapping' photons perspective merely repeat the usual misconceptions-based arguments which most people (on both 'sides') default to without realizing that the point I reminded of (which point you, DS, without realizing it, have been confirming me correct in) is a most CRUCIAL point to ponder and comprehend the implications of if the reality situation is to be understood as is, not as being mis-concieved/mis-explained and creating interminable arguments which MISS the point altogether. Hence the reigning confusion even among the professional theorists....because the 'maths' and 'abstract models/claims' are no substitute for comprehending the logical implications and the reality physical 'energy-space' entities/phenomena itself. Hence why I urged all to ponder BOTH PARTS of my sentence in original post/context, DS.

Apr 08, 2017
@RC, if you understood it, how come you're arguing that the escape velocity being greater than the speed of light doesn't stop light from emerging from a black hole?

It's really as simple as that. There isn't anything more to say.

Apr 08, 2017
Here, let me make this argument in detail.

Let's first discuss the meaning of "escape velocity" and the factors that affect it.

Escape velocity is the vector magnitude (speed) and vector direction of an object that is sufficient to cause it to permanently leave the influence of a particular gravity field from a particular level of potential in such a field. A gravity field is constant unless the mass that creates it is changing in density, mass, or is moving. For convenience, we will ignore movement, by selecting a frame of reference that is co-moving with the mass that is creating it. Thus, variables are limited to changes in mass, or changes in density.

In addition, due to the inverse square law, the escape velocity varies with distance from the geometric center of the mass that creates the gravity field. Additional to this, the shell theorem shows that the actual surface of an astronomical body is the point of maximum escape velocity.
[contd]

Apr 08, 2017
@RC
This is one example of why you fail.
said/implied
Those two words have different non-convergent meanings.
said - past and past participle of say. (something has been explicitly stated)
implied - suggested but not directly expressed. (something has not been explicitly stated)
i.e. it was either said, or implied. It cannot be both.
Do better mate, learn language :)

Apr 08, 2017
@RC
This is one example of why you fail.
said/implied
Those two words have different non-convergent meanings.
said - past and past participle of say. (something has been explicitly stated)
implied - suggested but not directly expressed. (something has not been explicitly stated)
i.e. it was either said, or implied. It cannot be both.
Do better mate, learn language :)

Zerg,
It's called CYA...:-)

Apr 08, 2017
@WG
hehe, "It's called CYA...:-)"
Indeed it is :) Obfuscation, diversion, reflection, all to hide a lack of information.

Apr 09, 2017
[contd]
But referring back, we see that density is crucial to the escape velocity. Density determines how strong the gravity field is at the surface of the object. Now, for a given mass, the radius determines the density. Thus, we can say that the two essential parameters to determine the maximum escape velocity are the mass and the radius within which this mass exists.

In fact, we can even say that for any mass, there is a radius below which the minimum escape velocity is above some arbitrary value, and above it the velocity is below that value. For a given mass, the escape velocity varies inversely as the radius.

Now, let us choose as our arbitrary escape velocity the speed of light. We can clearly see that for a given mass, the escape velocity we've chosen defines a particular radius for that mass below which it is above that value, and above which it is not. This radius is called the Schwarzchild radius.

[contd]

Apr 09, 2017
[contd]
Now let's talk about photons aimed straight up from the surface of a body. Such photons are following the minimum escape velocity path, for the location where the escape velocity is maximal.

As the photons move upward through the field, they lose energy just like everything else that moves upward through a gravity field; and this means they lose momentum. E = pc proves this. If the field is strong enough, they lose all their momentum before they can escape. A photon with zero momentum has zero energy, and cannot exist.

So at what escape velocity do the photons lose all their energy before they can exit a gravity field? This is very simple: when the gravity field's escape velocity straight up from the surface is greater than the speed of light. This is the situation of a body with a radius below its Schwarzchild radius.

Such a body is called a "black hole."

And that is the physics lesson for today.

Apr 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, if you understood it, how come you're arguing that the escape velocity being greater than the speed of light doesn't stop light from emerging from a black hole?
You 'read incorrectly' again, mate. I ASKED a QUESTION; after reminding all re OBSERVED behavior of photons in energy-space: ie, NOT slowing/speeding up IRRESPECTIVE gravity well STRENGTH.

See the DIFFERENCE between what I SAID, and what YOU 'read' it AS?

Are you aware of the teaching/learning technique of encourageing people to THINK IT THOUGH FOR THEMSELVES?

By simply reminding of the FACTS and letting them PONDER implications for whatever 'impression/arguments' they may be defaulting to now (re gravitationally 'trapped' photons) without actually having thought deeply enough and with ALL the info on the matter (using real, not just abstract, info available to them IF THEY ONLY LOOK and think for themselves).

FAILURE to do this leads to Bicep2 and other like fiasco/bad 'science. Ok, mDS?

Apr 09, 2017
PS @Da Schneib.

So mate, you are preaching to the converted in my case; since I already know and agree with all your explanations (as far as they go). But I added an extra layer of thinking and cautions and urgings that many can benefit from, ON TOP OF the abstract/maths explanations they already can get from wiki but which still is confusing to them as well as the professional theorists, STILL arguing over BH/EH 'radiation' and 'trapping photons' etc etc. Thanks for your series of posts re explanations of what is current theorists' collection of 'abstract/maths working-models in progress' re BH/EH hypotheses/possibilities in REALITY. I'm sure some here have benefited from your above posts on that. I just want you and them to think FURTHER about it all, remembering the facts I reminded of re NO PHOTON SPEED CHANGE, IRRESPECTIVE of what is the gravitational well strength. Good luck. Cheers.

Apr 09, 2017
@Zerg and @Whyde.

Why persist in your irrelevant and misinformed chatter, guys? The whole kerfuffle boils down to @DS mis-reading what I wrote. And @Zerg, no amount of semantical non-contextual re-interpretations of what was posted will help you understand. That is the problem with two big-mouth trolls talking about another's mistaken-reading generated confusion as if it was not a mistaken-reading generated confusion on his part. As explained just above. Do you two even bother to read without bias, before you open your big mouths, @Zerg, @Whyde? Stop your noise, anyway; it only clutters and you may miss the facts; yet again. Do/Be better.

Apr 09, 2017
OK, let's pin this down, @RC. Do you or do you not agree there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy?

Apr 09, 2017
OK, let's pin this down, @RC.
Good luck pinning him down on anything. I am still trying to get him to tell us how this thing worked out,,,,,

I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year. Sorry to all those left hanging a few months more for my ToE publication, but this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience. Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.


And,,,,

PS: Re my Complete Reality-based ToE and my Across-the-board Totally Integrated energy/transportation/environmental Solutions, you should be seeing both in full published within this year.


https://phys.org/...fic.html

Apr 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Do you or do you not agree there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy?
YES.

Question STILL debated in mainstream/alternative circles is: WHAT SORT of 'dark feature' IS it really?

Some say: Point/Ring-Singularity enveloped by a particular type of EH.

Some say: Naked-Singularity without EH, but rather a Quantum Physical region of 'undefined' physics.

Some say: NON-Singularity energy/mass 'extremely dense dark feature' retarding/preventing photonic escape from high-escape-velocity 'surface'.

All ABSTRACT Extrapolated-Maths based.

I say: Gravitating 'feature' having low luminosity due to a variety of physical energy-space phenomena surrounding the physical NON-singularity energy-mass content which 'conditions' (biases) that surrounding space by its presence/extended effects upon/by the energy-space expanse directly entrained in that extended feature from central body to external gravitationally active energy-space.

What say YOU, DS?

Apr 09, 2017
@Zerg and @Whyde.

Why persist in your irrelevant and misinformed chatter, guys? The whole kerfuffle boils down to @DS mis-reading what I wrote. ...

Maybe you just put too many "/"s in what you write...

Apr 09, 2017
@Whyde.
@Zerg and @Whyde.

Why persist in your irrelevant and misinformed chatter, guys? The whole kerfuffle boils down to @DS mis-reading what I wrote. ..

Maybe you just put too many "/"s in what you write...
OR maybe you just don't want to bother reading and comprehending, but would rather treat it as another opportunity to troll-shite on the PO floor.

And if you are driven to troll-shiting frenzy by a few 'slashes' in a post, be extra careful to stay away from any maths/programming discussions involving 'raw' LaTeX/TeX 'formatting' exchanges, mate....cos your reaction to that blizzard of 'slashes' would explosively expel your troll-guts via your troll-bowel, as well as your troll-shite! lol

Could you be any more irrelevant and stupid, cluttering a science/logics discussion with your troll-shite, mate?

PS: Whyde, have you any contribution on topic and on science/logics to make instead of more personal/ego troll-shite? If not, just listen and learn. Thanks.

Apr 09, 2017
...
...stay away from any maths/programming discussions involving 'raw' LaTeX/TeX 'formatting' exchanges, mate....cos your reaction to that blizzard of 'slashes' would explosively expel your troll-guts via your troll-bowel, as well as your troll-shite! lol

I did hardware. SW was for non mechanical types.
Could you be any more irrelevant and stupid, cluttering a science/logics discussion with your troll-shite, mate?

Was just a suggestion, "mate"...
You seem mighty sensitive...
PS: Whyde, have you any contribution on topic and on science/logics to make instead of more personal/ego troll-shite?

When I've learned something, yes.
If not, just listen and learn. Thanks.

it's why DS gets 5's and you don't. You kinda remind me of Soliari, but not even that good...

Apr 09, 2017
@Whyde.
..stay away from any maths/programming discussions involving 'raw' LaTeX/TeX 'formatting' exchanges, mate....cos your reaction to that blizzard of 'slashes' would explosively expel your troll-guts via your troll-bowel, as well as your troll-shite!
I did hardware. SW was for non mechanical types.
I am both 'types', and more besides. Hence my wide-ranging researches; and wide-ranging insights gained therefrom. You can do it too; if you but tried; without the negativity and irrelevant distractions you wastefully expend your time/energy/intellect/character on.
Could you be any more irrelevant and stupid, cluttering a science/logics discussion with your troll-shite, mate?
Was just a suggestion, "mate"..
Your "suggestion" motivated by continuing demonstrable personal troll-shiting 'need' to interrupt otherwise interesting/important science/logics discourse (else you would have condemned and "suggested away" all bot-voting 'types').

Wise up, Whyde.

Apr 09, 2017
@RC, I expect it's a pretty ordinary Kerr or Kerr-Newman black hole. That means it has an ergosphere. I'd be surprised if if were a Schwarzchild black hole.

Whether black holes have a singularity or not is questionable; since we do not have a theory of quantum gravity what takes place inside the event horizon is unknown mathematically, but of course the subject of endless speculation. It's apparent that we need such a theory since GRT does predict a singularity; I don't think singularities can exist and most physicists agree with me on both these points (though, based on a bet between Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking, perhaps not Thorne). I think when a quantum gravity theory is found, it will explain these singularities in GRT, and also rule out naked singularities.

I think a black hole is not luminous in any way; it is the phenomena surrounding it that are luminous. I don't think there's any mystery; its gravity is sufficient to account for its properties.

Apr 09, 2017
I also think that in the absence of a quantum gravity theory, it is footless to speculate on what's inside the event horizon. Not only is there no way to send a probe inside and get any information back out, but we can't even probe it with mathematics (because we don't have a quantum gravity theory).

I do not share your suspicion of math, @RC. It seems to me to have worked very well indeed. GRT hasn't been shown wrong in the most rigorous experiments we've been able to conduct so far. The same is true of the SM. It's the physical assumptions of hypotheses that generally turn out to be incorrect. Math itself is no more than a tool that, by requiring proofs, ensures consistency As with all logical exercises, if you start with bad assumptions, you will come to a bad conclusion.

Apr 09, 2017
"I am both 'types',..."
Your inability to communicate concisely and accurately amply demonstrate your lack of software "skills". I wouldn't trust you to write a "Hello World".
Ditto for hardware.

Apr 09, 2017
@Da Schneib. First please allow me to thank you sincerely for your above polite, respectful and erudite reply. Much appreciated, I assure you. To your comments, I again find little to disagree with, but again, only as far as the comments go, based as they are on the current abstractions-maths-based extrapolations, assumptions and interpretations in 'theory'...be that theory 'mathematical/abstract' GR or QM 'models/constructs'.

I in particular agree strongly with your 'take' re maths as a 'tool'. And also with your astute observation:
It's the physical assumptions of hypotheses that generally turn out to be incorrect.
Hence my reminders to all re pitfalls of 'carelessly' treating ABSTRACT mathematical objects and models as in any way representative of the REAL physical energy-space features/processes which we must now explore/explain using a more REAL maths axioms/construct 'fit for purpose' (you may be aware I have pointed out inadequacies of current maths/axioms?).

Apr 09, 2017
@Zerg.
I am both 'types',...
Your inability to communicate concisely and accurately amply demonstrate your lack of software "skills". I wouldn't trust you to write a "Hello World".
Ditto for hardware.
Fair reading in context is not your strong suit, is it? Nor is your self-control when it comes to troll-shiting on an on-going interesting/important discussion/thread. Take care not to soil yourself, Zerg.

In any case, either contribute constructively to the on topic science and logics discourse, or just listen and learn (if you are still capable of that after your longtime "running with the Bulls-shiters" in that 'gang' you seem not to have the courage and fortitude to 'outgrow' even under your new username persona).

Do/Be better this time round, Zerg; if not for your own sake then for the sake of science/humanity. I know you CAN do/be better; because I noted your facts-based defense of gkam against his stalking lying detractors in that 'gang'. Continue Brave, Zerg!

Apr 09, 2017
@I did hardware. SW was for non mechanical types.

I am both 'types', and more besides.

And... what was it you did, again?
Hence my wide-ranging researches; and wide-ranging insights gained therefrom. You can do it too; if you but tried; without the negativity and irrelevant distractions you wastefully expend your time/energy/intellect/character on.

Thanks for the grandiose plethora of your experience.
However, most of us can do without your constant reminder of it.
Quit lecturing.
Was just a suggestion, "mate"..
Your "suggestion" motivated by continuing demonstrable personal troll-shiting 'need' to interrupt otherwise interesting/important science/logics discourse. ...
Wise up, Whyde.

With over 7bn people in the world, I would guess there's at least a billion ways people learn stuff, successfully.
Yours ain't makin' me any wiser.
Nuthin' personal. Just an observation.
BTW. Your use of "Troll-shiting" offends me.


Apr 09, 2017
He does seem to have developed an obsession with excrement. As far as trolls go, the film Troll Hunter is an excellent watch :)

Apr 10, 2017
@RC, I am and always have been willing to engage in scholarly debate; in fact I prefer it very much. What has caused me to "descend into the pit" has been your use of personal aggrandizement, denigration of others, attacks against data that are well documented and carefully collected, and other tactics of argument that do not address the actual facts. If you are willing to eschew these tactics, then you will find that I will too.

Regarding your perception of my argument about math vs. data vs. hypothesis, I find math and data to be dependable, but hypothesis not so much. You will find that I always bias my comments along these lines.

[contd]

Apr 10, 2017
[contd]
Regarding "inadequacies of current maths/axioms" you'd need to provide examples. It doesn't seem to me that there are any inadequacies considering current math and axioms of that math given that we've piloted spacecraft beyond the putative edge of our solar system and beyond, given the existence and successful operations of current computers, given refrigerators, and given jet aircraft. Physics seems to "just work," and physics without math is pointless, particularly in the endeavors I have pointed out above, and many others.

I'm very unwilling to go beyond what math can show; you will note that I rarely if ever discuss what happens inside an event horizon, since I think any claims about this are footless. It may be interesting to entertain such speculations, but their content is not sufficient to challenge the foundational theories like Newton's Laws or GRT. It's apparent that GRT is incomplete; but claiming it is incorrect flies in the face of experiment.
[contd]

Apr 10, 2017
[contd]
I have quite carefully avoided GRT treatment of black holes, in order to make the conversation as simple as possible. GRT is not required to show that black holes are physical; Newton's TUG is sufficient, and this was shown by John Michell in 1784 and endorsed by Pierre LaPlace, one of the foundational figures of modern physics. I have gone so far as to use SRT, in my opinion the culmination of classical physics, and referred repeatedly to @RNP's use of the most important equation of SRT:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Along with the axioms of SRT, this is the most important part of the theory. It leads to all of SRT's most profound conclusions, among them that mass is equivalent to energy in a fixed ratio, that energy has momentum even if it does not have mass, and that apparent mass increases with velocity. Without math, none of these results are apparent.
[contd]

Apr 10, 2017
[contd]
My point in this thread is and has been that there is a gravitational anomaly, created by the concentration of a large enough mass in a small enough radius and its consequent escape velocity greater than light, at the center of the galaxy, and the existence of this mass is a reliable demonstration of the existence of black holes generally. The sole reliable indicator is the existence of an object with an escape velocity greater than light, and our observations show this is so. Math that demonstrates that the maximum observed possible radius for this mass dictates a density equal to or greater than the required density for this escape velocity is highly reliable and need not be based upon either SRT or GRT. The observations are unshakable.

Your agreement with this is heartening. If you can stop using tactics that indicate you are unable to handle the technical arguments, perhaps you will find someone to talk to that will not use them in turn.

Apr 10, 2017
[contd]
My point in this thread is and has been that there is a gravitational anomaly, created by the concentration of a large enough mass in a small enough radius and its consequent escape velocity greater than light, at the center of the galaxy, and the existence of this mass is a reliable demonstration of the existence of black holes generally. The sole reliable indicator is the existence of an object with an escape velocity greater than light, and our observations show this is so. Math that demonstrates that the maximum observed possible radius for this mass dictates a density equal to or greater than the required density for this escape velocity is highly reliable and need not be based upon either SRT or GRT. The observations are unshakable.

Your agreement with this is heartening. If you can stop using tactics that indicate you are unable to handle the technical arguments, perhaps you will find someone to talk to that will not use them in turn.

Dude - you rock...:-)

Apr 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 11, 2017
@Whyde.
Hence my wide-ranging researches; and wide-ranging insights gained therefrom
Thanks for the grandiose plethora of your experience.
However, most of us can do without your constant reminder of it.
Not grandiose; I back it up while you keep trill-shiting away your time and opportunity on here. And You remind us of your drinking and sculpting; so, double Standards again, Whyde? At least I remind of known science/logics and novel insights gained, Whyde.
Your "suggestion" motivated by continuing demonstrable personal troll-shiting 'need' to interrupt otherwise interesting/important science/logics discourse. ...
Wise up, Whyde.
With over 7bn people in the world, I would guess there's at least a billion ways people learn stuff, successfully.
Do they ALL learn cosmological theory/insight scientifically?
ain't makin' me any wiser.
Your troll-shiting isn't helping.
BTW. Your use of "Troll-shiting" offends me.
Your troll-shite offends science.

Apr 11, 2017
@Zerg.
He does seem to have developed an obsession with excrement.
Better to study and observe the troll-shiter and its troll-shite scientifically for objective clues as to its motivation and behavior, than to BE the unsuspecting troll-shiter 'specimen', Zerg. And apparently, chatting with your fellow troll-shiters is to YOU a more 'intelligent' pastime than actually engaging in courteous, respectful science/logics discourse on a SCIENCE site, hey? Go figure! lol

Apr 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I am and always have been willing to engage in scholarly debate; in fact I prefer it very much.
I also; as I have been trying to suggest and encourage for years now. I'm glad we finally agree.
What has caused me to "descend into the pit" has been your use of personal aggrandizement, denigration of others, attacks against data that are well documented and carefully collected,...
What? How many instances have you attacked me and called me liar etc etc and using troll-gang tactics and distractions/irrelevances despite me being correct all along and you being the party in the wrong on both the science and behavior? Too many to now transfer blame on me, DS. Whereas I 'descend into that pit' only when I confront unprovoked, unscientific, scurrilous attacks.
Regarding your perception of my argument about math vs. data vs. hypothesis, I find math and data to be dependable, but hypothesis not so much.
Glad you agree with me on that at least, DS.

Apr 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Regarding "inadequacies of current maths/axioms" you'd need to provide examples. It doesn't seem to me that there are any inadequacies considering current math and axioms of that math given that we've piloted spacecraft beyond the putative edge of our solar system and beyond, given the existence and successful operations of current computers, given refrigerators, and given jet aircraft. Physics seems to "just work," and physics without math is pointless, particularly in the endeavors I have pointed out above, and many others.
Please do not misunderstand me. I have nothing against the conventional maths/axioms/construct as 'pure' maths. It is what it is. The problems arise when a 'maths' is required to model REALITY. I have LONG pointed out how, after a CENTURY of GR and QM, there is still no way for conventional maths to MODEL/EXPLAIN ALL of that PHYSICAL REALITY in a consistent, continuous mechanistic manner, from infinitesimal to infinite scale/phenomena.

Apr 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
My point in this thread is and has been that there is a gravitational anomaly, created by the concentration of a large enough mass in a small enough radius and its consequent escape velocity greater than light, at the center of the galaxy, and the existence of this mass is a reliable demonstration of the existence of black holes generally.
Again, agreed; as far as it goes. It is the nature/mechanics of that 'feature' which even the professional theorists STILL differ on; especially, as you point out, re cross-over/interior regions. Until more IS understood (in real fact) then the 'argument' remains mathematical extrapolations/interpretations...with no end in sight. Hence need for NEW maths.

Your agreement with this is heartening. If you can stop using tactics that indicate you are unable to handle the technical arguments, perhaps you will find someone to talk to that will not use them in turn.
That's exactly what I have been saying to you/others.

Apr 11, 2017
[contd]
Regarding "inadequacies of current maths/axioms" you'd need to provide examples. It doesn't seem to me that there are any inadequacies considering current math and axioms of that math given that we've piloted spacecraft beyond the putative edge of our solar system and beyond, given the existence and successful operations of current computers, given refrigerators, and given jet aircraft. Physics seems to "just work," and physics without math is pointless, particularly in the endeavors I have pointed out above, and many others.

It'll be in the upcoming TOE that he can't talk about...

Apr 11, 2017
@Whyde.
However, most of us can do without your constant reminder of it.
Not grandiose; I back it up while you keep trill-shiting away your time and opportunity on here.

No, you don't. You constantly remind us how something is what you have said all along.
And You remind us of your drinking and sculpting; so, double Standards again, Whyde?

At the same volume as your reminders that you "Knew this" all along? Thankfully not.
At least I remind of known science/logics and novel insights gained

No, you don't. Only your own "Novel" insights. Which you won't backup with any known science. I know, I know... too many plagiarists, etc. out there.
Do they ALL learn cosmological theory/insight scientifically?

Most aren't interested. And - you PRESENT un-scientifically. We're no longer in the era of "great insights". We're in the down and dirty world of DATA,
Your troll-shite offends science.

Your "science-shite" offends science.

Apr 12, 2017
@RC, you really just can't stop yourself, can you?

I'm not even going to bother to quote. There's no need; anyone can read your posts and see you swinging back to self-promotion, denigration, trolling, and lying.

Sigh. How disappointing. I suppose I should have known better. G'bye again for another six months, @RC.

Apr 12, 2017
@Da Schnieb.
@RC, you really just can't stop yourself, can you?

I'm not even going to bother to quote. There's no need; anyone can read your posts and see you swinging back to self-promotion, denigration, trolling, and lying.

Sigh. How disappointing. I suppose I should have known better. G'bye again for another six months, @RC.
What is it with your 'convenient forgetfulness', DS? In your above post, just substitute DS for RC and you have the real state of affairs; based on the recorded posts/facts history, instead of your own 'ignore-deny-attack-while-wrong-and-lying' tactics which failed you many times before (but you conveniently omit that embarrassing history of yours). As for you again 'ignoring' my posts, that is what keeps getting you into trouble; because you MISS OUT important background/new info which could have (combined with you updating yourself on relevant science discoveries/reviews) prevented your repeated failure to admit I have been correct. Sad.

Apr 12, 2017
@Whyde.
Regarding "inadequacies of current maths/axioms" you'd need to provide examples. It doesn't seem to me that there are any inadequacies considering current math and axioms of that math given that we've piloted spacecraft beyond the putative edge of our solar system and beyond, given the existence and successful operations of current computers, given refrigerators, and given jet aircraft. Physics seems to "just work," and physics without math is pointless, particularly in the endeavors I have pointed out above, and many others.

It'll be in the upcoming TOE that he can't talk about..
I have already/often posted/explained elsewhere what they are. You just missed/ignored them and are 'blissfully ignorant' of the facts while making more troll-shite noises which bury the discussion so that others miss things like you have. Blame yourself for your own intentionally caused ignorance of the whole story instead of 'troll-shite' lies you help perpetuate and condone.

Apr 12, 2017
@Whyde.
However, most of us can do without your constant reminder of it.
I back it up while you keep troll-shiting away your time and opportunity on here.
No, you don't. You constantly remind us how something is what you have said all along.
I do BOTH. I remind of the known science AND new mainstream, and my, info/insights. And what do you do, Whyde? Troll-shite and ignore it all.
At least I remind of known science/logics and novel insights gained

No, you don't. Only your own "Novel" insights. Which you won't backup with any known science. I know, I know... too many plagiarists, etc. out there.
I remind of known science and my new insights being confirmed by mainstream recently. What do YOU do, Whyde? Troll-shite.
We're no longer in the era of "great insights". We're in the down and dirty world of DATA,
So YOU have achieved the consistent ToE, Whyde; and the rest is mere "data" details? Stop Troll-shiting, Whyde. Learn to listen instead.

Apr 13, 2017
I do BOTH. I remind of the known science AND new mainstream, and my, info/insights.

Which are all in the "upcoming" ToE, I would imagine... (I know, i know... Plagiarists and all that...)
Face it. You're too old to worry about the fame and accolades you might receive. Forget about "you" for a moment and think about the effect it might have on a future society - withOUT you.
THAT's humility.
And what do you do, Whyde? Troll-shite and ignore it all.

Only you.
I prefer to call it - calling your bluff.
Put out the damn thing, if you really can. EVERY WHERE.
We're no longer in the era of "great insights". We're in the down and dirty world of DATA,
So YOU have achieved the consistent ToE, Whyde; and the rest is mere "data" details?

Yep. Which puts me way ahead of you..
Learn to listen instead.

7th step.
Practice what you preach. Soliari.

Apr 13, 2017
@Whyde.

I'm still 'soundboarding' my ToE 'reality-based theorizing process' results as necessary; whilst also keeping abreast of relevant developments in mainstream discoveries, reviews, discourse to see what confirms said results.

Another reason I have delayed publication is, I'm still working to finalize a reality-based axioms/maths construct more capable than conventional axiomatic/maths construct for modeling the reality.

Before again admonishing/exhorting me re "publishing now, everywhere", please consider:

- 100 years of mainstream theoretical physics 'maths/geom' has yet to be capable of modeling the current partial/incomplete physical theories (some of which is wrong anyway, but that's another matter);

- publishing piecemeal/prematurely is for "publish or Perish" types motivated more by personal/mercenary/job etc considerations than by the completion of work to best ability;

- publishing complete minimizes time-wasting confusions, arguments.

Ok, Whyde?

Apr 13, 2017
@Whyde.

I'm still 'soundboarding' my ToE 'reality-based theorizing process' results as necessary; whilst also keeping abreast of relevant developments in mainstream discoveries, reviews, discourse to see what confirms said results.

Which I (and many others) would interpret as - not really having a ToE. Just a vague notion that there IS one out there, somewhere...
Before admonishing/exhorting me re "publishing now, everywhere", please consider:
- 100 years of mainstream theoretical physics 'maths/geom' has yet to be capable of modeling the current partial/incomplete physical theories (some of which is wrong anyway, but that's another matter);


That 100 years of MSTP "maths/geom" PLUS the last 6000 yrs of "axioms" and historical observations has given us every data point you could possibly need to navigate where we are now and where we want to go.
Just needs to be put together in the right sequence, and in the right manner.
7th step. there are no shortcuts.

Apr 13, 2017
@Whyde.
Which I (and many others) would interpret as - not really having a ToE. Just a vague notion that there IS one out there, somewhere...
If you/others have been ignoring, denying, trolling, bot-voting etc without clue-one about what I have posted, why and with what constraints because of publishing-complete considerations (including reality-maths work), then you only have biased ill informed opinions/lies to offer on that.
That 100 years of MSTP "maths/geom" PLUS the last 6000 yrs of "axioms" and historical observations has given us every data point you could possibly need to navigate where we are now and where we want to go.
The problems I have highlighted here and elsewhere reflects the FACT that the conventional Axioms, from which the conventional maths has been constructed, are UNREAL (ie, Philosophical/Metaphysical NOTIONS such as 'dimensionless points' and 'zero radius' etc) and only ever lead to singularity(s), undefined(s) and UNreal 'objects'. Ok?

Apr 13, 2017
@Whyde.
Which I (and many others) would interpret as - not really having a ToE. Just a vague notion that there IS one out there, somewhere...

If you/others have been ignoring, denying, trolling, bot-voting etc without clue-one about what I have posted, why and with what constraints because of publishing-complete considerations (including reality-maths work), then you only have biased ill informed opinions/lies to offer on that.

That should have stated - YOUR vague notion. (not ours)
Funny how you turned that around to be about your perspective. (again)
Kindly leave your ego at the front door before entering your next post....

Apr 13, 2017
That 100 years of MSTP "maths/geom" PLUS the last 6000 yrs of "axioms" and historical observations has given us every data point you could possibly need to navigate where we are now and where we want to go.
.
The problems I have highlighted here and elsewhere reflects the FACT that the conventional Axioms, from which the conventional maths has been constructed, are UNREAL

It's all useful data. Both good AND bad - as useful learning tools.
But, please - provide the CORRECT maths to build REAL axioms.
Show where they are failing. That's science.
(Philo/Metaphysical NOTIONS such as 'dimensionless points' and 'zero radius' etc. only ever lead to singularity(s), undefined(s) and UNreal 'objects'.

Not arguing that point. Don't think anybody does.
But, they are useful (math) bars to measure everything else against.
Please provide an alternative methodology to resolve the problem you are encountering.
Oh - wait. it's in that darn ToE.

Apr 13, 2017
@Whyde.
Which I (and many others) would interpret as - not really having a ToE. Just a vague notion that there IS one out there, somewhere..
If you/others have been ignoring, denying, trolling, bot-voting etc without clue-one about what I have posted, why and with what constraints because of publishing-complete considerations (including reality-maths work), then you only have biased ill informed opinions/lies to offer on that.
That should have stated - YOUR vague notion. (not ours)..
You've been running with that bot-voting ignoramus troll-gang too long, Whyde. You've become even more deluded, ill informed than they have been! They at least SAW my in-house book/papers references outlining my Reality-based physical ToE 'main aspects' (Gravity Mechanism, and more, to be further explained when published complete and consistent with the Reality-based maths). And you STILL miss/deny recent mainstream news confirming many of my ToE results/insights correct. Sad.

Apr 14, 2017
@Whyde.
The problems I have highlighted here and elsewhere reflects the FACT that the conventional Axioms, from which the conventional maths has been constructed, are UNREAL
It's all useful data. Both good AND bad - as useful learning tools.
But, please - provide the CORRECT maths to build REAL axioms.
Show where they are failing. That's science.
Bad data only misleads.

And please note: Axioms come at the start; the maths is then built from the Axioms. Got that straight, Whyde?

I've shown "where they are failing", Whyde; many times. You either miss it or don't understand any of it (which you have admitted already).
(Philo/Metaphysical NOTIONS such as 'dimensionless points' and 'zero radius' etc. only ever lead to singularity(s), undefined(s) and UNreal 'objects'.
Not arguing that point. Don't think anybody does.
And YET they troll, insult instead of listening, agreeing. Explain that, Whyde.
Oh - wait. it's in that darn ToE.
Finally twigs!

Apr 14, 2017
Technically, @Whyde, points are not axioms.

Meanwhile, ask @RC what he thinks of the proposition that
A + B = B + A
This is the axiom of transitivity, a fundamental axiom of mathematics. It's all very well to whine about Euclidean geometry, but when you see someone get to whining about algebra you need to ask them questions like,

"If you see two apples, and you take one, then take the other, does it matter which one you take first to whether you then have two apples?"

The obvious answer is "no," and thus we see that fundamentally, mathematics encodes fundamental features of reality. That's why it works so well.

Apr 14, 2017
Here's another one:
A = A
The question: "If I have an apple today, and I put it away and get it out tomorrow, will I still have an apple?"
Another variant: "If I have an apple, and Joe has an apple, do we each have an apple?"

This is how math encodes reality.

What's amazing is that with only a very few such axioms, the entire formal structure of mathematics emerges.

Apr 14, 2017
Uh oh, forgot my basics. Transitivity is:
If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.
The one I showed above is commutativity.
The question for transitivity is: "If I have an apple, and Joe has an apple, then if Jean has an equal number of apples to Joe, does she also have an equal number of apples to me?"

These are basic axioms of arithmetic. One can descend even further, to the Peano postulates, but it is unnecessary in order to illustrate the reason that math is ultimately based on the characteristics of consensus reality. Philosophical BS about math is ultimately footless. We can discuss Godel and incompleteness, if you like, but the fact is that even Godel doesn't question whether math is accurate, except as it questions whether reality is accurate. And that's a question for quantum mechanics, not classical physics involving people and apples.

Apr 14, 2017
So the basic question here is, does @RC claim that adding a column of numbers will get a different answer depending on the order of the numbers in the column?

That is one of the axioms he is arguing against.

And if not, then what particular axiom is it arguing against? Let's get specific here. Definitions of points and lines have nothing to do with GRT.

Apr 14, 2017
And finally regarding points and lines:

A point is the idealization of a location. Does @RC not "believe in" locations? Does it argue there is some sort of "real location" that is different from a point? How exactly is it different?

A line is the idealization of the shortest distance between two points. Does @RC not "believe in" such a shortest distance? What does it offer instead? Anything?

Bueller?

These constructs have yielded geometry that allows us to construct accurate ephemerides that predict the positions of planets in our solar system to the limits of our ability to measure those positions. We navigate with precision that has aircraft arriving at their destinations with pretty good on-time accuracy; most aircraft are on time. Just about all of them arrive where they were going. Does @RC argue otherwise?

Looks pretty good from over here. Just sayin'.

Apr 14, 2017
Meanwhile these same constructs are used to build bridges, skyscrapers, aircraft, automobile engines with micron tolerances, snow and water skis, helicopters, clocks, computers, and a variety of other technological artifacts that seem also to work remarkably well given how suspicious @RC is of the math used to design them.

Have I adduced enough evidence to show exactly how silly all of this whining about the general unreliability of math is?

Apr 14, 2017
Meanwhile these same constructs are used to build bridges, skyscrapers, aircraft, automobile engines with micron tolerances, snow and water skis, helicopters, clocks, computers, and a variety of other technological artifacts that seem also to work remarkably well given how suspicious @RC is of the math used to design them.

Have I adduced enough evidence to show exactly how silly all of this whining about the general unreliability of math is?

Your examples are so - axiomatic..:-)

Apr 14, 2017
@Whyde. What Da Schneib is talking about is NOT the maths for a reality-based ToE modeling, but a mere ABSTRACT ARITHMETIC ALGORITHMS NOTATION and CONVENTIONS.

This is obvious, since in REALITY UNIVERSAL CONTEXT there is NO SUCH THING as 'nothingness'. Can you get that? THat is why DS's 'explanations' and 'examples' are couched with qualifiers such as "IDEAL" and "IDEALLY" etc.

See? They are all ABSTRACTION based, not REALITY based.

Which is why conventional maths ALWAYS ends up 'blowing up' into infinities, singularities, undefineds and unreal/abstract mathematical/metaphysical/philosophical "OBJECTS" that have NO relation to reality physical context needing to be modeled consistent and complete AS REALITY, and not AS ABSTRACTIONS.

Once you realize the limitations of conventional axioms/maths constructs, you understand why the need for NEW reality-reflecting axioms/maths construct for modeling reality-ToE, and NOT some "IDEALIZED" (ie, PLATONIC FORMS) abstractions. Ok?

Apr 14, 2017
PS @WHYDE. It should by now be glaringly obvious that Da Schneib is REGURGITATOR of whatever 'beliefs' happened to have come across his 'reading'. Problem is, he is NOT updating his reading to include recent/current discourse/insights into the very 'beliefs' he is regurgitating! He is blithely ignorant of better understandings/reviews by mainstream (and me) NOW. You can see his 'method': the 'Stumpy Method of IGNORE and DENY'; instead of LISTENING and LEARNING what he OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T YET REALIZE re whatever he is opening his big insulting, arrogant mouth about.

Recall I had to TEACH HIM about:

- plasmoids-jets and flux tube processes in solar photosphere/corona processes/events;

- NON-Keplerian matter distribution and Orbital Regimes in/around spiral galaxies;

- problems with all Bicep2/Other 'exercises' relying on wrong/naive CMB/Redshift assumptions;

- plasmonic energy/waves at two-slit etc 'barriers';

- not to mention inadequacies of 'conventional' maths.

Ok?

Apr 14, 2017
@Whyde. What Da Schneib is talking about is NOT the maths for a reality-based ToE modeling, but a mere ABSTRACT ARITHMETIC ALGORITHMS NOTATION and CONVENTIONS.

And "reality math"s are subject to picking the correct ones.The only way you can do that is via "abstractions".
This is obvious, since in REALITY UNIVERSAL CONTEXT there is NO SUCH THING as 'nothingness'.

The "math" only leads there hyperbolicly. Universes symmetry law requires a parabolic to match it,
THat is why DS's 'explanations' and 'examples' are couched with qualifiers such as "IDEAL" and "IDEALLY" etc.

So that a proper, relative "bar" is maintained.
See? They are all ABSTRACTION based, not REALITY based.

They're pointers - to reality...
Can't do one without the other....

Apr 14, 2017
PS @WHYDE. It should by now be glaringly obvious that Da Schneib is REGURGITATOR of whatever 'beliefs' happened to have come across his 'reading'. Problem is, he is NOT updating his reading to include recent/current discourse/insights into the very 'beliefs' he is regurgitating! He is blithely ignorant of better understandings/reviews by mainstream (and me) NOW. You can see his 'method': the 'Stumpy Method of IGNORE and DENY'; instead of LISTENING and LEARNING what he OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T YET REALIZE re whatever he is opening his big insulting, arrogant mouth about.

You understand them as insults. I call them - "calling your bluff"
Stop casting stones, Soliari
Recall I had to TEACH HIM about:

YOu taught DS nuthin' -
You refuse to accept the reality he presents.
DS ain't always exactly right, but he's far closer than you.
Because his mind is still open...


Apr 14, 2017
@Whyde.
And "reality math"s are subject to picking the correct ones.The only way you can do that is via "abstractions".
You can only do that by having regard from the outset to REAL and NOT UNreal axioms, concepts and consequences. Haven't you been listenig? The conventional maths has failed to do that from the outset; I even gave examples for years now, which you just ignore (or don't understand, as you've admitted before now).
The "math" only leads there hyperbolicly. Universes symmetry law requires a parabolic to match it,
No, Whyde. It requires REAL concepts, axioms and objects to represent the reality. There is NO "leading to" REALITY if you start from UNREAL things. Current state of TWO CENTURIES of ABSTRACT maths theory/modeling is a proof of that.
So that a proper, relative "bar" is maintained.
Reality does NOT NEED a "relative bar", Whyde; it's ALREADY THERE.
They're pointers - to reality...
You CAN'T GET THERE from "here", if "here" is NOWHERE.

Apr 14, 2017
@Whyde.
You understand them as insults. I call them - "calling your bluff"
Stop casting stones, Soliari
No need to attribute your own inability to understand to others, Whyde. As for him "calling my bluff"; you really should not do a 'Stumpy' like DS has been doing; ie, ignoring and denying while opening big mouth and saying black is white.
YOu taught DS nuthin' -
Did you even check the items on my post above, listing instances where he was ignorant and abusive while I was patient and taught him what his 'ignore and deny and insult' approach led him to MISS that was new/crucial info; which made his OLD regurgitated 'stances' so much parrot crap?
You refuse to accept the reality he presents.
Oh, he does that? How can he, while ever he employs the Stump Method of 'ignoring, denying and insulting' while lost in UNrealities?
DS ain't always exactly right,...
Because his mind is still open...
"Open" to bot-voting troll-shiting ego-tripping gang '5's.

Apr 15, 2017
@RC's got nothing on the ball technically so it always talks about process. It's a complete waste of time.

Anybody who denies basic stuff like A = A or A + B = B + A isn't well enough connected with reality to have anything to say worth listening to.

Apr 15, 2017
There is NO "leading to" REALITY if you start from UNREAL things. Current state of TWO CENTURIES of ABSTRACT maths theory/modeling is a proof of that.
So that a proper, relative "bar" is maintained.
Reality does NOT NEED a "relative bar", Whyde; it's ALREADY THERE.
They're pointers - to reality...
You CAN'T GET THERE from "here", if "here" is NOWHERE.

Here is somewhere - it's where we are.
Are YOU "abstract"?

Apr 15, 2017
News flash: @RC caught lying about cosmic voids on the Expanding Universe and Imaging Dark Matter Web threads.

See:
https://phys.org/...rgy.html

The exact lie is, @RC claims that someone (who is not clear, typical of @RC's false claims) said that cosmic voids are absolutely completely free of all matter whatsoever. @RC will not be able to substantiate this claim, and cannot have made its claim without already knowing this.

This individual is either a world-class liar or a psychotic. Opinions on this site vary but are limited to these two. I will point out that it has denied A = A on this thread.

Apr 15, 2017
^(*)&%&^#)^%( phys.org editor does it again: the second link is

https://phys.org/...ies.html

Apr 15, 2017
@Schneib rubs @RC's nose in it again, this time across multiple running threads currently open for comment.

Eventually the puppy learns; now we'll all see if @RC is more or less intelligent than a baby dog.

Apr 15, 2017
@Whyde.

"Nowhere" meaning "nothingness". That is the 'unreal' starting point for all the current maths/big bang etc unreal things infesting both the maths and the physics; so that no amount of conventional 'unreal-starting-point' axioms and maths constructs can ever model the reality. Nearly two centuries of such unreal maths/physics concepts/fantasies has not come even close to being capable of modeling/explaining even partial theories consistently, let alone THE complete ToE. Got that straight; or are you going to clutter with more semantics and inconsequential blather?

Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.

For someone who BOASTS about NOT reading what is being posted, you seem so 'certain' you are 'correct'. That attitude didn't help all those many times when you were wrong all along and me correct all along, did it? One would think you had learned; but your 'convenient amnesia' allows you to pretend you are in any position to assess anything at all. YOU DON'T READ...and when you DO read, it is very selective confirmation biased and poorly understood in all its subtlety and context/implications. You just REGURGITATE OLD stuff anyone can read from OLD wiki entries which have YET to reflect the full impact of new recent mainstream discovery and reviews in many areas of science/physics. Keep regurgitating stuff based on increasingly falsified assumptions and interpretations, DS. That ill informed "technical" stuff you are 'good' at parroting...pity it isn't UP TO DATE stuff.

PS: You STILL don't 'get' the implications of that mainstream article/study re redshift!

Apr 15, 2017
@RC is unbelievably arrogant for someone who doesn't understand A = A.

Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC is unbelievably arrogant for someone who doesn't understand A = A.
You really are clueless re the limitations of such conventions/abstractions, aren't you, DS?

Your A = A is all abstraction not real. In such abstract constructs you can 'move' right hand side 'A' to left hand side, and 'get'...

A - A = 0

BUT consider REALITY context: How does that abstractions based algebraic construct treat a UNIVERSE? This is how YOU would have it....

UNIVERSE = UNIVERSE

....then 'moving' right hand side UNI to left hand side you 'get':

UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE = 0

Do you see your problem, DS?

Yep! There is NO SUCH THING as NO (zero) UNIVERSE; because NOTHINGNESS is and always has been merely an UNREAL PHILOSOPHICAL/METAPHYSICAL ABSTRACT NOTION.

That is only one problem with trying to use a maths/axioms construct based on UNreality to model and explain a physical UNIVERSAL REALITY.

Do you 'get' the point now, DS? If not, try harder; insult less.

Apr 15, 2017
@RC doesn't know that infinity - infinity = infinity. Like so:

Take the infinite set of whole numbers. Subtract the infinite set of even numbers. You are left with the infinite set of odd numbers.

Meanwhile, approaching the same point from another direction, if I have one apple, and I eat it, how many apples do I have? <- looks like zero, i.e. nothingness, to me, just sayin'

Regarding A = A, it's pretty simple: an apple equals itself. <- natural law, the law of existence; if it's not true then there really is nothingness

This is the problem with trying to pretend that philosophy is a science. It's not even as good at defining reality as simple math.

And @RC is innumerate.

Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC doesn't know that infinity - infinity = infinity. Like so:

Take the infinite set of whole numbers. Subtract the infinite set of even numbers. You are left with the infinite set of odd numbers.
You really have no clue, have you, DS?

The UNIVERSE is a REAL thing; whereas the MATHS concept of INFINITY is NOT real, but a philosophical/metaphysical notion insofar as the maths convention is concerned.

Also, INFINITY is NOT a "number". It is a maths 'object' in set theory convention.

So, DS; you are ignorant and still open your big mouth to accuse others of ignorance. As usual, you are trapped by your own ego and failure to learn and get up to speed about the things you open your big mouth about while insulting others who do know/understand more than you.

So what is your answer, DS, to the obsrvation that UNIVERSE-UNIVERSE is NOT Zero UNIVERSE?

Your attempt to re-frame that as INFINITY-INFINITY is again an ABSTRACT convention/construct and NOT REAL.

Apr 15, 2017
@RC, having just demonstrated that you don't know how infinity works, don't know how zero works, and don't know what A = A means, I would say that it's objectively obvious that you're the one who doesn't have a clue. And equally obvious that your biggest problem is you're innumerate.

Apr 15, 2017
I've noticed that the effectiveness of math really makes philosophers mad. It comes from such simple roots, and is so effective, that it makes all their navel gazing look like the idiocy it actually is. Gives them inferiority complexes, I guess. It's a shame.

Apr 16, 2017
@Da Scneib.

Keep twisting and deluding yourself, DS. That's all you are fit for since you have no clue what you are 'parroting' and 'believing' in your own mind about all sorts of unreal things while missing the reality.

The you just brazenly accused me of prefering philosophy to maths is a hoot!

I have been informing you how, where maths is infected with philosophical unrealities, YET you come back accusing ME of preferring philosophy?

How deluded can you get, DS? Yep, that deluded; so deluded you've lost the plot and again just 'making stuff up' about what is happening, who said what; all because you have no clue, DS.

Take a long break, DS; the ego-tripping games aren't working out for you, even with your gangster '5's from equally malicious and clueless types bot-voting on a science site (that alone should have told you that you were being 'admired' by the ignoramus trolls and bot-voting creeps on the net who have ruined other sites; recently Sciforums). Sad, DS.

Apr 16, 2017
You're the one who's lying, @RC. You claim research that doesn't exist and can't produce links to it.

It's over, @RC.

Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.Keep repeating that, DS; someone might believe it if they have not been privy to what has gone down so far in this and previous instances when you attack, lie, accuse then claim victory....only to finally find out you were wrong all along and me correct. What use are you, DS? You only bring regurgitated OLD orthodoxy and abstractions from a century of philosophy/metaphysics-riddled maths/axioms construct based theory that has failed to deliver the unified ToE. Readers can get all they want of such failed crapola from old wiki articles. Read up and learn what is NOW coming from mainstream in dribs and drabs not yet 'consolidated' into the literature to replace the crap therein from decades past. You are nothing but a 'hack' if you just keep repeating wrong stuff because you 'need' attention and admiration from that 'gang' of bot-voting ignoramuses worse than you. Do better, DS. Learn.

Apr 16, 2017
@RC, produce the links. Or admit you can't. Like @RNP said, put up or shut up.

Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Making demands on me now? After years of you and 'the gang' intentionally (boasting about it too!) ignoring what I posted and just proceeding to attack/insult me instead? Reality (and the posting history) is a 'stranger to you', isn't it, DS? Stop digging, DS.

Apr 16, 2017
@RC, face the facts: you lied and you got caught. It's over, @RC.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

Apr 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 16, 2017
Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.


@RC has been challenged ever since by multiple parties to provide links to this supposed research and in every case has failed to do so.

There is no particular reason to believe anything this individual posts. He is known to lie, and does so for self-aggrandizement. He is incapable of admitting a fault, and will abuse anyone who points one out. He is by all appearances innumerate; incapable of mathematics.

Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You missed it all, intentionally, boasting you don't read before attacking in ignorance. Your problem now. I am not going back over years of posts for you to just ignore and deny again. Do your own work. And...stop digging, DS; your hole is way big enough to bury yourself and that 'bunch', already.

Apr 16, 2017
@RC, I'm not boasting about anything. I'm saying you lied, with set intent to deceive, for your own self-aggrandizement.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.


Apr 16, 2017
@Whyde

keep poking - there is some real insight in the delusional rants above
it's quite informative as to thought process and more
he's managed to go from a "maths free ToE" to making up new maths - and notice how he has lately been challenging people to provide evidence, but now is stating "Making demands on me now?" when asked to simply reciprocate? - that is absolutely fascinating, and very telling
THANKS in advance
Apologies in advance too
I'll owe ya a beer or three

Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You boast of putting posters on IGNORE. You don't read what is posted yet you open your big mouth in ignorance and attack because your 'admirers' in the bot-voting ignoramus 'gang' encourage you to for their ego-tripping pleasure, at the cost of objective science discourse.

You can't be more anti-science than that, DS. You intentionally avoid being informed by others; you prefer to remain uninformed about mainstream advances; yet you accuse me of whatever comes to your drink-sodden excuse for what's left of 'intellect'.

And there! In comes your mentor for the STUMPY METHOD for 'remaining ignorant and malignant' while the rest of science and humanity tries to advance despite your 'types' sabotaging at every turn. Still preferring to 'chat' amongst his 'bot-voting gang of trolls' instead of LEARNING and keeping up with the evolving reality on many fronts in mainstream science/logics. What better indication that you and they have lost the plot, DS?

Stop digging!

Apr 17, 2017
Sorry@RC, there aren't any process arguments left you haven't tried a hundred times. It's your go-to strategem, along with lying. And there isn't any new study that overturns cosmic voids. You're still trying to double down, and you're still failing to convince anyone.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Apr 17, 2017
@RC, science has integrity. You have none. It's not "anti-science" to point out lying psychotic crank trolls. It's actually an act to preserve the integrity of science, and prevent anyone from confusing your crank physics, lies, and demented self-aggrandizement with real physics.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.


Apr 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You tried those tactics too often, DS. They failed every time. And you know why.

Get up to speed with it all before you again egotistically troll, accuse and insult one who knows more than you do, and has been more correct than you, on many fronts.

Learn!

And...stop digging!

Apr 21, 2017
@RC, if you can't count you don't understand reality, and until you learn to count you won't. The universe is fundamentally consistent; in our experience things don't appear out of nothing and don't disappear into nothing. They might get transformed into something else, but the little bits of them still exist, one way or another.

It's necessary to use math in order to keep count; it's a basic way of making sure that whatever you say about reality, it's what is really happening. If your statements aren't mathematically sound, then they're incorrect. It's just that simple.

I'll also note that it's a common feature of dishonest scheming that it all eventually ignores and obfuscates math. The intent is to conceal the schemer's real agenda.
[contd]

Apr 21, 2017
[contd]
When the forensic accountant shows up, everybody is required to show their math, and anyone who fails goes to prison. There is no hiding from the forensic accountant. The forensic accountant has seen every way cheaters try to hide from accounting, and can't be cheated, and every attempt to cheat the forensic accountant is another criminal offense. The forensic accountant uses math in its purest form: accounting.

The problem with your claims, @RC, is that they *don't add up*. It's just that simple.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Apr 21, 2017
@Da Schneib.
The universe is fundamentally consistent; in our experience things don't appear out of nothing and don't disappear into nothing. They might get transformed into something else, but the little bits of them still exist, one way or another.
Thank you for agreeing with what I have been pointing out to BB etc aficionados for years now, DS. Cheers!

It's necessary to use math in order to keep count; it's a basic way of making sure that whatever you say about reality, it's what is really happening. If your statements aren't mathematically sound, then they're incorrect. It's just that simple.
Did you miss that two centuries of the 'conventional maths' has failed to model the universal reality consistent and complete, DS? Hence why I am working out a reality-based maths.

...and obfuscates math.
Don't 'conveniently forget' the 'reality obfuscating' effect by conventional maths ITSELF, due to all its inbuilt unreal metaphysical/philosophical 'notions'.

Apr 21, 2017
@Da Schnieb cont...
When the forensic accountant shows up,..... There is no hiding from the forensic accountant. The forensic accountant has seen every way cheaters try to hide from accounting, and can't be cheated, and every attempt to cheat the forensic accountant is another criminal offense. The forensic accountant uses math in its purest form: accounting.

The problem with your claims, @RC, is that they *don't add up*.
After two centuries, the only maths which doesn't add up when used to model reality is the conventional maths. Hence the stagnation in ToE model by those depending on such inadequate and unreality-based maths constructs whose problems are compounded by all the unreality assumptions which began infecting the scientific literature with BB and related myths having no scientific support whatsoever (if you discount assumptions laden fixes and interpretations in circuitous manner).

PS: Your "forensic accountant" drivel is too lame for words. Stop digging!

Apr 21, 2017
If you can't count nobody on the science site cares what you say.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.